Last week, the Government announced the appointment of eight new Permanent Secretaries. The persons selected appear suitably qualified for the position and are not generally known to be politically aligned. However, questions have been raised as to the basis under which they were selected, considering that there were no public advertisements for the position.
Role of the Public Service Commission
It is not clear as to the extent of involvement of the Public Service Commission (PSC), if any in relation to the above appointments. Article 201 of the Constitution states that ‘the power to make appointments to public offices and to remove and to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in those offices shall vest in the Public Service Commission’. The office of the Permanent Secretary, it is to be noted, is a public office. This is reinforced in the 2020 Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure. Under Section 4.4 entitled “Personnel and Other employment Related Information”, the position of Permanent Secretary is listed as part of the authorized establishment.
Another issue relates to the outgoing Permanent Secretaries. If they have been appointed by the PSC, it is that independent constitutional body that has the authority to dispense with their services. Under normal circumstances, public service employees are relieved of their positions mainly for misconduct or inability to perform. If they are aggrieved and feel that their dismissal was unjustified, they can file an appeal with the Public Service Appellate Tribunal (PSAT). After more than two decades, the PSAT was re-activated in May 2017 with the appointment of the three-person appellate body.
In early August, the Government had announced the appointment of six Regional Executive Officers (REOs). However, the position of REO is not listed as one of the authorized positions. Considering that REOs are heads of budget agencies accountable to Parliament for the use of financial and other resources vested in them, it would be desirable for the position to be included in the authorized establishment, and hence the involvement of the PSC in their appointment.
A professionally strong, and politically neutral and effective Public Service
In our article of 21 September 2015 on the subject, we had stated that, following the change in Administration in that year, several Permanent Secretaries and REOs were replaced while others had resigned because they were candidates for the Opposition political party for the elections. We had bemoaned the fact that for the longest while, we had abandoned the principle of a neutral public service, and replaced it with a politicised one, the top echelons of which comprised handpicked persons based on party loyalty, instead of technical and professional competence.
We consider the practice of changing Permanent Secretaries and REOs every time there is a change of government militates against a professionally strong, politically neutral and effective Public Service. Governments may come and governments may go, but it is the Public Service, staffed by competent and impartial officials, that provides the institutional memory to
a smooth transition from one government to another. Indeed, the Public Service is a permanent institution that transcends political considerations. The designation “Permanent Secretary” symbolizes this concept. That apart, Permanent Secretaries and REOs need security of tenure of office if they are to function to the highest level of competence, capability and professionalism. There should be no incentive to become politically aligned. Indeed, a politically appointed Permanent Secretary is a misnomer and a contradiction in terms.
Commission of Inquiry into the functioning of the public service
In 2015, a Commission of Inquiry (COI), headed by Prof. Harold Lutchman, was appointed to examine the functioning of the Public Service with a view to making recommendations for a reformed Service. In its report issued in May 2016, the COI stated that it concurred with the views of many of those who have given testimonies, that Permanent Secretaries and REOs, whose duties and responsibilities are comparable, should be appointed by the PSC, instead of the President and the Minister of Communities as is currently the practice. In this way, there will be a more integrated Public Service and greater synergies with the Administrative Regions. Accordingly, the COI recommended the following:
(a) The PSC be reconstituted with 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, as in the case of the PSAT, that members of the Commission should possess experience and show capacity in matters relating to administration, human resource management or public affairs;
(b) The Constitution and other applicable laws be appropriately amended to empower the PSC to appoint Permanent Secretaries and REOs;
(c) All appointments to the Public Service positions be by open internal and external competitions to obtain the best from the labour market; and
(d) All appointments by the PSC be on the basis of merit and be free from political influences, and meet the essential qualifications and requirements for the jobs to be performed.
The Commission referred to the Westminster model with its emphasis on such values as impartiality and neutrality of public servants in their relations with incumbent governments. However, in practice, this model proved difficult to adhere to in Guyana in view of the dominating political influences and the resultant reality that governments tend to prefer having in place ‘not neutral or neutered public servants but those who are among their enthusiastic and active supporters’. In such a scenario, differences between Government and Opposition tend to focus not so much on the contracted employees but on their numbers and the distorting effect on governance.
The COI further stated that relevant rules and regulations are not obeyed, honoured or respected as they should, because ways and means are easily found to avoid or neutralize their influence, such as: (i) not fully constituting (or inordinate delays in doing so) agencies charged with oversight functions (such as various commissions) in relation to such bodies; and (ii) appointing supporters and even relatives thereby making it difficult for them to execute their responsibility with objectivity, with the result that terms such as transparency and integrity are ineffectual. According to the Commission, ‘[a]t base, it represents a marked failure to act consistently with the law which is often quite clear. The obvious conclusion is that it is not so much the law that is at fault but practices and divergent patterns of behavior not in keeping with the law and its spirit’.
Permanent Secretaries and REOs as heads of budget agencies
Apart from being the most senior civil servants of their respective Ministries, Departments and Regions with overall responsibility for the management of the operations of these agencies, Permanent Secretaries and REOs are heads of budget agency, answerable to Parliament via the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) for the financial management of the agencies under their control and more specifically for the extent to which revenues have been garnered and expenditures incurred are consistent with the wishes of Parliament as set out in the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure. That answerability or accountability is via the Auditor General’s office which is required to audit the appropriation and revenue accounts of heads of budget agencies and reporting to Parliament. It is the PAC that carries out a detailed examination of these accounts using Auditor General’s report as the starting point for doing so. With the PAC five years in arrears in its examination of the public accounts, most of the heads of budget agency would not be around to provide answerability to the PAC for their financial stewardship, because of the present practice. This is most unfortunate, indeed highly undesirable.
Permanent Secretaries and REOs must adhere to the requirements of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act, especially with regard to the prudent use of the appropriations allocated by Parliament to their agencies as well as the requirement to surrender at the end of the fiscal year all unspent balances. They are required to manage the affairs of the agencies under their control in a manner that promotes the proper use of public resources. In particular, Permanent Secretaries and REOs are responsible for:
(a) Implementing appropriate processes and procedures to prevent the incidence of fraud, embezzlement, or misappropriation of public money or other assets of the State;
(b) Maintaining an effective internal audit capability;
(c) Pursuing the collection of any moneys owing to the budget agency, and hence the State;
(d) Coordinating the timely preparation of the budget submission to the Ministry of Finance;
(e) Maintaining the financial management system of the budget agency;
(f) Operating bank accounts approved by the Minister of Finance;
(g) Ensuring the security of and accounting for all cash and other assets of the budget agency;
(h) Maintaining financial accounts and related records as required by the Minister and provided for under the Regulations and Financial Circulars, among others;
(i) Providing the Financial Secretary with any information requested concerning the affairs of the budget agency;
(j) Preparing and submitting appropriation and revenue accounts within the prescribed deadline to the Auditor General for audit and providing the necessary cooperation to enable his office to do so;
(k) Making themselves available to respond to any queries arising out of the audit and providing appropriate explanations in writing; and
(l) Making themselves available during the PAC’s examination of the public accounts relating to their agencies.
Permanent Secretaries and REOs must also strictly adhere to the requirements of the Public Procurement Act in relation to the procurement of goods, services and the execution of works, especially the requirement to follow competitive bidding procedures, as outlined in the Act, to ensure the best value for money is obtained.
To be continued –
