Govt. fine-tuning Code of Conduct for Ministers, MPs…. State contracts interference, gifts of more than $10,000 a big no-no

Nov 08, 2015 News

---

Five months after taking office, the new administration seems ready to tackle corruption with its long-awaited Code of Conduct that governs how Ministers behave in office. The Code has been released for fine-tuning.
The draft document, published on the Ministry of the Presidency website on Friday, speaks to disciplinary actions or terminations for Ministers, Parliamentarians and other public office holders who are in the breach.
The draft document also addresses the acceptance of gifts of more than $10,000, conflict of interests, accountability and even gambling.
The code would be crucial for the David Granger administration which campaigned for the May 11, 2015 General Elections on promises that it will be making sweeping changes to improve behavior of public officials.
In the past, there were little actions against public officials despite reported evidence. These actions included discharging a firearm, drunk driving and trading on insider information.
The purpose of the code is to assist Ministers, Members of Parliament and public office holders in the discharge of their obligations to their constituents and the public at large.
“It provides guidance on the values – the moral qualities – that should govern the conduct of Ministers and Members in discharging their Parliamentary and public duties. It is also meant to reinforce public confidence in the way in which Ministers and public office holders perform those duties.”
It was made clear that public office holders are duty bound by the code in all aspects of their public life. The code, however, does not seek to regulate the conduct of public office holders in their private and personal lives.
The Nation’s Interests
“Public office holders have a duty to uphold the law, including the general law against discrimination and sexual harassment, and to act with propriety on all occasions in accordance with the public trust and confidence placed in them. Public office holders have a general duty to act in the interest of the nation as a whole and owe a special duty of care to their constituents, and citizens.”
The draft code lists the 10 principles of public life – accountability, dignity, diligence, duty, honour, integrity, loyalty, objectivity, responsibility and transparency.
Regarding accountability, the draft code proposes that public office holders are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions, and must submit themselves to scrutiny and criticism.
The must also conduct themselves in a manner that is worthy of the respect of their peers and the public and be effective, efficient, courteous and reliable in the performance of their duties.
With regard to duty, the draft code stated that public officials owe a duty to the country “and must consider themselves servants of the people”.
Of course, the issue of integrity was dealt with. “Public office holders have a duty to declare any private interest relating to the discharge of their duties and responsibilities, and to ensure that their personal decisions and actions are not in conflict with the national interest. Public office holders should display allegiance to the state and should show concern for the well-being of the persons that they were elected to represent.”
In the area of responsibility, the draft code stated that Ministers collectively have a basic responsibility to make decisions only in the national interest void of any forms of personal gain, or other material benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
Regarding the actions, the code said that Ministers should be open about all their public decisions and actions and be prepared to provide explanations when so demanded by the public.
Accepting Gifts
When it comes to accepting gifts, it is being proposed that public officials should report gifts or other forms of reward valued at more than $10,000 to the Integrity Commission.
It is being recommended that public officials should consider declining such gratuities if the acceptance of same could be perceived to have an effect on their objectivity and lead to complaints of bias or impropriety.
It was explained that a conflict of interest situation arises when the “private interests” of the public office holder compete or conflict with the interests of the state.
Private interests can mean both the financial and personal interests of the official and staff or those of their connections and would include family and other relations, personal friends, companies or business interests which they hold or own, and other clubs and societies to which they belong.
The draft code also speaks about trading on insider knowledge.
“Ministers, Members of Parliament and public office holders should avoid using their official position or any transmitting any information made available to them in the course of their to benefit themselves, their relations or any other individuals with whom they are associated. They should avoid compromising themselves or their office and which may lead to an actual or perceived conflict of interest.”
Failure to avoid or declare any conflict of interest may give rise to criticism of favouritism, abuse of authority or even allegations of corruption.
“In particular, Ministers, Members of Parliament and public office holders involved in the procurement process should declare conflict of interest if they are closely related to, or have, or will likely be perceived to have, beneficial interest in any company or transaction that would result in the award for the supplies of goods and services to the state.”
Taking a Drink
Public officials should also desist from accepting lavish or frequent entertainment from persons with whom the government has official dealings- including from suppliers or contractors, clubs and persons to which the state may allocate resources or job assignments.
It is being proposed that officials who misuse their office for personal gains or to favour their relatives or friends or to benefit their business connections are liable to disciplinary action by the Government or even prosecution by the state.
“Examples of misuse include an official or a staff member responsible for the selection of suppliers giving undue favour or leaking tender information to his own or his relative’s company with a view to awarding the contract to the latter, or placing it in an advantageous position ahead of other competitive bidders.”
Other examples include the unfair allocation of resources, like venues, to other parties for personal gain.
Officials were also warned that the handling of classified or proprietary information is of utmost importance with adequate safeguards needed in place to prevent its abuse or misuse. “Examples of misuse include disclosure of information in return for monetary rewards, or use of information for personal interest or business benefit. It should also be noted that unauthorised disclosure of any personal data may result in a breach of the personal data.”
With regard to properties and other state resources, the draft code warned that these are to be used solely for the purpose of conducting Government’s business and not for political party work.
“Misappropriation or unauthorised use of such property or resources, such as for personal use or personal gain (e.g. resale or unauthorized leasing), is strictly prohibited. Facilities provided to Ministers, Members of Parliament and public office holders at Government expense to ensure fulfillment of their official duties should not be used for political activities. Government property should not generally be used for constituency work or party activities.”
The draft code also warned of excessive gambling and forbids any such activities on Government premises.
Public office holders who wish to take up paid outside work, including those on a part-time basis, must seek the written approval of the Government before accepting the job.
“Approval will not be given if the outside work is in conflict with the interest of the Government.”
Regarding compliance with the code, the draft document insisted that it is the personal responsibility of every official to understand and comply with it, in particular by conscientiously avoiding any conflict of interest, and making declaration and seeking prior permission from the Government in any case of exception.
Also included in the draft code is, “Any official or staff who violates any provision of the Code will be subject to disciplinary action, or termination of appointment/employment where warranted. Members of the public may submit complaints to the Integrity Commission under Section 28 of the Integrity Commission Act with respect to perceived breaches of this Code of Conduct, or that of the Act.”

---

---