GHRA welcomes government’s commitment to review State-Boards selections

Aug 09, 2015 News

The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) has welcomed the announcement by the Governance Minister, Raphael Trotman, that the original selections on State Boards were the product of pressures to produce quick results rather than a considered rejection of ethnic or gender balance. The GHRA therefore commended the decision to re-visit the selection guidelines.
Last week, Trotman announced that the various State Boards across Guyana may be up for review again, admitting that government may have used inconsistent guidelines for the selection of the recent appointees and is now in the process of making the necessary adjustments to establish new criteria.
Trotman acknowledged that the entire process may have been rushed and not much consideration was given to some of the appointees on the various Boards.
“I know there is a criticism about insufficient gender and balance (on the Boards),” the Minister admitted, noting that Cabinet is currently in the process of establishing new guidelines which can affect the current appointees.
Following the announcement of the State Board appointees, the David Granger-led Administration came under harsh criticisms from sections of society over the imbalance in the composition of the new Boards.
The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) protested over the appointments. The organization had said, “All Government functionaries responsible should feel ashamed over today’s announcement that only three (9.4 per cent) of the new Chairs of the 32 State Boards in the finance sector are females.”
In its most recent statement, GHRA said that the willingness on the part of the Government to acknowledge deficiencies of the original procedure and to take on board civic criticism is refreshing.
This bodes well for a more productive dialogue between the governmental and non-governmental sectors, both on this and other governance issues.
The organization said that in addition to the adjustments for ethnic and gender balance, it also recommends that the opportunity provided by the review also takes into account a number of other factors determining whether these mechanisms are ‘fit for purpose’.
Further, GHRA stated, “Too many statutory bodies appear to have drifted from their original purpose, namely, providing civic oversight and direction of a particular public sector activity.”
The organization expressed hope that under the more conducive procedures being considered, civil society will evolve to the point where it can play a role, not only in advising on selection, but also on monitoring the performance of the non-institutional members of State Boards.
“A more vibrant civil society could consider creating mechanisms for some form of feed-back from civic representatives to a civic forum, thereby socializing to some degree the representational function away from its current image of being entirely private or personal.
We would argue, however, that the central criterion for selection should be a track record of public service, particularly in the area that falls under the purview of the particular Board. Proposals for the continuous improvement of civic performance on State Boards, such as the above, need time, consultation and consideration,” said GHRA.
The organization also pointed out that traditionally, a seat on a State Board is “too frequently seen as a reward for political activists and supporters of ruling parties.
This is indefensible where appointees do not possess the minimum qualifications to justify selection.
The more difficult case, however, is where the appointee is technically qualified but has an alliance or support for the ruling party, sufficiently vibrant as to negate his or her ability to play an impartial role.
A State Board comprising a majority of committed opponents would be equally dysfunctional as one of committed supporters.”
The GHRA also suggested that there be a reduction in the disparities in remuneration for service on State Boards and statutory authorities.
“Apart from inherent fairness, a standard form of remuneration for members of State Boards would also help decontaminate selection and acceptance from inappropriate financial considerations. Reportedly, disparities in current remuneration are alarming and in some cases compromise independence. The GHRA would suggest a common criterion in relation to remuneration which should aim to cover realistic expenditure.”

Latest News

GHRA welcomes government’s commitment to review State-Boards selections

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Thomas’ hat-trick inspires D.C Caesar Fox 10-5 victory, as Annai...

Stabroek Ballers, Sparta Boss, Bent Street...

West Indies Falter in Disheartening Series Loss...

Trophy Stall hands over trophies for Kennard...

Omari Glasgow, carrying the hopes and dreams of a...

GCF eyeing growth across other regions in 2025...

Features/Columnists

The stakes are high in Guyana’s democracy

Let the asylum seekers go: a first step for Venezuela to rebuild relations in the Americas

A leader undresses in public

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

GHRA welcomes government’s commitment to review State-Boards selections

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]