Human Resources Dispensation in the Public Service: Some Curiosities

Feb 02, 2019 Letters

---

 

DEAR EDITOR,

If anything the Estimates of 2019, as passed in the National Assembly, reflect a level of consistency, if not persistency, in its disposition towards the human resources in static categorisation of employees in the Public Sector (Service).
For one, Constitutional Commissions continue to be identified the same as standard budget agencies. Except that the Presidency is now the fourth largest Ministry in the executive governance structure, as shown in Table A below.

Table A
Ministry 2018 2019 % Inc
Public Security 6864 7658
Public Health 3041 3262
Education 2981 2884 –
Presidency 732 910
Social Protection 621 707

With respect to the above it is worth noting that the Ministry of the Presidency constitutes of the following components:
Employees
Social Cohesion 99
Defence& National Security 6
Policy Development & Administration 235
Citizenship & Immigration Services 141
Environmental Management & Compliance 15
Cultural Preservation & Conservation 112
Youth 135
Sport 23
Petroleum Energy Management 3
Public Service Management 100
With regard to the list mentioned, it would be interesting to learn what level of authority this (sub) Department exercises over its senior ministerial counterparts. The miniaturisation of this once premier Agency – speaks to the value now attributed to human resources management and development in the Public Service.
It explains why no attention has been given to any of the recommendations of the vaunted Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service. Noteworthy is the fact that its staffing of 100 compares poorly with that of 235 of Policy Development and Administration.
And with 141 staff, the Citizenship & Immigration Dept. certainly seems to enjoy priority attention.
One is left to wonder what (Policy) Development implies. But this appears to be answered by the stated Programme Objective of Public Management i.e. “To manage the Public Service of Guyana through the provision of professional personnel training and consultancy services to ministries, departments and regional administrations”.
Accordingly this Department is assigned the following levels of staff:
 Administrative 5
 Senior Technical 1
 Other Technical & Craft Skilled 3
 Clerical & Office Support 25
 Semi-skilled Operatives & Unskilled 7
 Contracted Employees 44*
 Temporary 15

*Contracted Employees can be recruited at all levels, so that this category does not necessarily reflect superior delivery capability.

The question can be legitimately asked as to whether the overall range of human resources depicted can confidently be expected to deliver on the ‘Programme Objective’?
In any case it is more logical for training programmes to be designed and delivered to address identified ‘personnel’ developmental needs – a process that follows from an effective performance appraisal system which, despite another relevant recommendation by the aforementioned Public Service Inquirers, continues to be substantively ignored across Agencies. (The Staff College certainly does not correct this faultline).
Certainly also, the current construct, even including the Public (and Police) Service Commission, permits the Public Service Management minimal say in the recruitment processes conducted by full scale Ministries and indeed, Regional Administrations.
One is uncertain about the construction of job/position descriptions and the consistency with which they are utilised, if at all. For it is based on these stated requirements that performance appraisal has to be effected.
Long ago this exercise used to be basically for two purposes:
i) a) to award annual increments to assessed good performers
b) to effect disciplinary action where deemed necessary, including eventual termination of service.
ii) for promotion, much of which is now nullified by the resort to contract employees.
Here again one wonders how the Public Service Management monitors any of these exercises, assuming that it has the authority to audit the variable human resources management practices.
The latter includes the following chronic categorization of at least three decades old:
 Administrative
 Senior Technical
 Other Technical & Craft Skilled
 Clerical & Office Support
 Semi-skilled Operatives and Unskilled
– in defiance of all the increasing new technologies, methodologies and skills requirements. Why then is there this deep constipation of Semi and Unskilled in the face of an oil and gas future?
In any case, the question must be asked, once too often, which competencies and what mechanisms are utilised to measure these suspect levels of ‘skills’.
How credible are the following numbers, when for example Table B is interpreted?

Table B
Ministry Semi-skilled & Unskilled Skilled
2018 2019 2018 2019
Presidency 50 99 23 58
Finance 5 9 26 28
Foreign Affairs 64 80 46 50
Indigenous Peoples’ Affairs 25 29 6 8
Agriculture 28 37 56 61
Natural Resources 5 10 1 1
Public Infrastructure 41 61 24 36
Education 188 183 261 286
Public Health 581 688 743 869
Social Protection 146 170 111 126
Public Security 578 592 1243 1325

Note the skills/semi-skills increases highlighted. Who made these individual Ministerial decisions?
In the meantime if anyone thinks highly of the ‘Administrative’ category, just try the following sample of related positions:

 Permanent Secretary
 Programme Coordinator
 Accountant
 Community Development Officer
 Administrative Assistant
 Engineer Technician
 Personnel Officer II
 Registry Supervisor
 Assistant to the Minister
 Foreman National Exhibition Centre
 Public Relations Assistant
 Aviation Inspector
 Switch-Board Operator
 Schools Inspector
 Field Auditor
The above sample would appear to suggest that individual agencies are allowed their respective interpretation of the descriptor ‘Administrative’.
The logic further suggests that they each also enjoy independence in assigning different types of jobs/positions to the other categories.
Which means that there is no over-arching consensus about job categorization.
Such a haphazard arrangement must have implications for related job values, which are compounded by the institutionalisation of contract employment vis-à-vis pensionable service – a situation that generates a substantive conundrum in compensation management across the Public Service Sector.
First of all it would not be surprising if there were variations in the structures of contracts.
What should be constant however, is the provision for ‘contracted employees’ to be paid gratuity at the rate of 22.5% of monthly salary every six months, in lieu of pension. The assumption herein is that the salary is fixed for the contract period, albeit within the salary scale applicable to the same or comparator position in the pensionable establishment.
The problem is, however, that current salary scales have mythical values, as there have been no job evaluation exercise for the past decade at least. This default has been idyllically compensated for by spasmodic ‘annual’ increases, non-negotiable with the representative Union.
As a matter of interest the basic salary structure contained in 2019 Estimates is as follows, effective 1st January, 2018.

Band Monthly Minimum Monthly Maximum
14 404,558 715,802
13 335,630 563,428
12 271,507 462,545
11 220,554 354,607
10 175,366 287,058
9 141,804 220,829
8 121,564 176,612
7 102,508 142,105
6 88,621 111,153
5 76,988 96,946
4 70,281 79,893
3 62,214 76,116
2 64,200 72,053
1 64,200 70,073

To confirm the irrelevance of the above scales approved by the National Assembly, interested parties must wonder about what commonsense attaches to the following formula actually applied for the last annual increases retroactive to January 1, 2018.
Salary Ranges (Not Scales) $ % Increase
1,000,000 and above 0.5
800,000-999,999 1.0
700,000-799,999 2.0
500,000-699,999 3.0
300,000-499,999 5.0
100,000-299,999 6.5
60,000-100,000 7.0
0-60,000 6.4

It is clear that the above was not concocted by any one or group who knows about compensation management. The approved salary scales were glaringly ignored. Note that the maximum of the approved highest scale is $715,802.
Which levels of employees are therefore being above $699,999 and up to $1,000,000 and above? It could only be ‘contracted employees’ (hopefully not Ministers). Which authority would have evaluated the related positions that would have attracted these superfluous salaries?
Citizens (dual or otherwise) deserve a cogent technical explanation, bearing in mind that the presumed contractees enjoy gratuity payments.
However, what this palpable compensation management default implies is that the salary scales approved by the National Assembly constitute a fundamental fiction.
It all makes a nonsense of Public Service Management and a mystery of the Public Service Commission’s role.
One wonders at what level the authors of this malfeasance are being remunerated.
Among the many recommendations made in the aforementioned COI Report, the following immediately speaks for itself.
“Recommendations # 13 – 16
We accordingly recommend:
13. That contract workers on all grades holding Public Service positions be absorbed into the pensionable Public Service establishment provided that they are suitably qualified to fill established positions.
14. That contracted employees/workers should be restricted to high level professional skills not available in the Public Service, and should be recruited and selected through open competition to obtain the best available candidates in the job market.
15. That no Public Servant who retires before attaining the age of 65 years should be employed on contract in view of the proposed age retirement on attaining 65 years of age.
16. That the optimum complement of suitably qualified staff for each ministry, office, division, department, and unit, etc. with the right organizational structure, needs to be evaluated and determined by human resource and organizational audits.”

Comments are invited.
Yours faithfully
E.B. John

---

---