Dear Editor,
It is an interesting contrivance, that is appointing the 30 year re-elected Chairman of the Guyana Public Service Union (albeit in controversial circumstances) to act as Chairman of the employer agency, namely the (Guyana) Public Service Commission.
Apart from courting the immediate perception of a conflict of interest, one must wonder not only about the congratulatory timing, but also the legality of the process. In this regard no attention appears to have been paid to the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the Public Service in 2016, either by the decision-makers or beneficiaries involved. Hopefully however, the extracts below will invite further relevant discussion.
Paragraph 80 of the aforementioned Report states first of all:
Under the Constitution the PSC has “the power to make appointments to public offices and to remove and exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or in such offices.”
Related to the above, the CoI made the following quite cogent observations:
“81. This issue was raised during our inquiry, with specific focus on the composition of the membership of the PSC and whether it was conducive to the proper performance of its assigned duties. In this respect it has always been a matter of concern as to whether the PSC is composed of the best collection of persons qualified to successfully and meaningfully give effect to the role assigned to it in the Constitution. The following are the relevant provisions usually under scrutiny and criticism:
“2000(1) The Public Service Commission shall consist of six members who shall be appointed as follows, that is to say-
- a) Three members appointed by the President acting after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.
- b) Two members appointed by the President upon nomination by the National Assembly after it has consulted such bodies as appear to it to represent public officers or classes of public officers; and
- c) If the President deems fit, one other member appointed by the President acting in accordance with his own deliberate judgment.”
“83. At present the PSC has the President of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions (FITUG) as its Chairman. He, as a member of the Commission, was elected to its chairmanship by other of its members. Among the latter are the President of the GPSU which is the certified recognized union representing Public Servants; an Executive member of the GPSU; and three other members.
“84. Queries were raised about the bona fides and tenability of the PSC as constituted. These included whether or not there was the possibility of the Commission being contaminated by bias and conflict of interest.”
“88. The view is prevalent that it would be unfortunate and unacceptable were the PSC, as now constituted in terms of its membership, to be associated with and acceptable of such situations. No doubt, the present members of the PSC gained their positions on it through the operation of existing legal rules and procedures. However, as demonstrated in the immediate foregoing, questionable situations may result on occasion from the operation of the law resulting in the need for its review in order to effect such change as may be deemed necessary. But legal amendment may not be the only option. Additionally, the development of conventions which, although not law, enforceable by the judiciary, may well be respected as if they are laws, especially where morality issues may be involved.
“89. The evidence before us revealed that relationships and interactions between and among the members of the PSC were not as cohesive, cordial and productive of positive results as would be expected of a professional group involved in the execution of such vital functions which the Commission is charged with executing. This situation was in part the result of limitations of knowledge, understanding and training in regard to the proper role and status required of members of the PSC. This is in contrast with the situation existing in many other states, where there is usually keen interest among members of such entities to function co-operatively on the basis of shared professional values and ethics. Political influences are minimized or eschewed, in particular when they emanate from persons or organizations (nominators) responsible for their nomination (nominees) gaining membership of the Commission; especially where the values of nominators, or requests made are in conflict with, or in violation of professional norms and standards. In brief, acceptance of nomination or appointment does not necessarily connote or lead to subservience.”
“93. In summary, then, concerns raised with us portrayed the PSC as an agency that is ill-equipped to discharge its responsibilities. We believe that given its intended independent constitutional status, the PSC should be preserved and protected as in other Commonwealth states, including Canada whose Public Service Employment Act provides for an Independent Public Service Commission which has exclusive authority to appoint persons to or from within the Public Service in keeping with the law.
“94. From the evidence before us it is imperative that appointment to membership of the Public Service be based on merit and made by a Commission that is credible and adequately qualified to do so, and which enjoys the respect of the general public. We believe that there is justification in the call for its reform with specific reference to its membership. In doing so we take cognizance of the fact that the PSC’s constitutional status would require that the requisite procedure be followed in effecting amendment or change.”
The above excerpts were followed by recommendations 5-6:
“5. That as far as possible all efforts be made to effect the required change.
“6. That the PSC should at all times be constituted with suitably qualified and competent persons of unquestioned integrity who would strive to be fair and impartial in the execution of their duty in consonance with the constitutional prescription that they exercise independent judgment and not be influenced by political and other external or extraneous considerations.”
But to return to para 83, it will be noted that the Chairman was elected by other members of the Commission (as in fact required by the Constitution). The question is therefore put for debate whether it is arguable that in the interest of transparency the election process should also apply to the acting appointment, leaving aside of course the alleged suspect personality factor.
Note that in the end the CoI recommended as follows:
“That the PSC be constituted of suitably qualified and competent persons of high integrity to exercise their duties in strict fairness impartiality and on the basis of merit. It is desirable that members of the Commission should possess experience and show capacity in matters relating to administration, human resources management or public affairs.”
Indications are that the above recommendation, amongst others, may have been overlooked by the ‘appointers’.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
