At various junctures of the life of this 21-month-old government it has been emphasised in the editorial columns of this newspaper that the government must fastidiously ensure fairness in the hiring of persons for all positions given the concerns over the jobs-for-the-boys syndrome and the favouring of persons on grounds other than merit. It is a benchmark of good governance, fairness and transparency that the government and its ministries and departments are obligated to observe.
A key aspect of this process is the wide publicising of vacancies with sufficient time provided for the aptly qualified to apply and a procedure through which explanations are provided and decisions could be challenged. In the early days of the administration, some senior positions were filled without any elucidating information on the process. In some ministries, positions are still being filled without evidence of an open invitation process while in other ministries advertisements have been placed. One outstanding example related to a position at the Ministry of Business for a booth attendant for an exhibition in Astana, Kazakhstan from February 22 to 23. This is remarkable given the short-term nature of the appointment and is to be commended. It appears that where it relates to vacancies at the various ministries there is no defined policy or a uniform approach as there should be and some positions are clearly advertised, others are in limited circulation and others just filled liked that. There must be consistency in this process underpinned by an intention to ensure the widest participation and for merit to be the key determinant in the final selection.
The previous administration did not have a good record in this respect. This government must not be given any room to continue this malady.
Which brings us now to the Public Procurement Commission (PPC). It is ironic that a constitutional commission whose establishment has been so long awaited and whose key mandate is to ensure fairness in the huge procurement sector is now facing questions over the manner in which it selected its top employee, the Chief Executive Officer.
The five commissioners on the PPC were themselves appointed by the Public Accounts of Committee of Parliament in what is a highly politicised process with the two main groups: APNU+AFC and the PPP/C no doubt prepared to make political deals on appointments. The five commissioners have now in turn disregarded the application of the former long-serving auditor general, Anand Goolsarran and selected a Jamaican who had once acted for a brief period as Kingston’s Contractor General. There is of course no issue with a properly qualified Jamaican being selected for this position as it gives full expression to the Caricom aspiration of free movement and integration.
What is vulgar, however, and indefensible is the complete ignoring by the PPC of the application of Mr Goolsarran though he was eminently eligible for the post and based on a comparison better qualified with far more relevant experience than the person who was selected. Though he had applied in good time, Mr Goolsarran was not even afforded the courtesy of an acknowledgement of his application let alone an interview and serious consideration for the post. It was only upon his reading of a news item in this newspaper that he became aware that a selection had already occurred without him being even spoken to.
The complete ignoring of Mr Goolsarran’s application for the post raises troubling questions about whether the PPC made a decision on the candidate for this post without giving those who were eligible a full opportunity and whether the prospect for the appointment of the most eligible candidate was lost. Mr Goolsarran, an international civil servant, has written to the Chair of the PPC, Carol Corbin lodging an objection and calling for a review of the process. It is unclear if this will be done. Mr Goolsarran in a report in this newspaper said that Mrs Corbin in response to his query about the selection said that the assessment of the applications received “did not result in your selection as one of the candidates whose experience was most closely aligned to the requirements of the post”. That is a disturbing response and one must question the factors motivating the deliberations of the PPC considering their selection by the PAC.
Among the functions of the PPC are to investigate complaints from suppliers, contractors and public entities and propose remedial action; investigate cases of irregularity and mismanagement, and propose remedial action; initiate investigations to facilitate the effective functioning of public procurement systems.
It would diminish confidence in the process if from the outset the PPC is seen to be making an insupportable decision and making selections of key personnel for the wrong reasons.
Hopefully, Mr Goolsarran will pursue his objections to the PPC decision as far as possible. The name of the selected candidate will now go to Parliament and one hopes that in the National Assembly the Alliance for Change seizes the opportunity to show that it is a balancer in the House and a force for better governance of the country. APNU is unlikely to be moved by Mr Goolsarran’s concerns. This will be another test for the AFC in the backdrop of rising concerns that it is not doing enough to force a change in the backward political culture of the two main parties.
