Rushing to Judgment

Aug 22, 2020 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

It is an interesting construct for possible debate – that is of (voted) ‘Political Appointees’ terminating the employment of (non-voted) ‘political appointees’, and for no other explicit reason.
Arguably, the exercise may be justified purely in the interest of change, except that the change process to which one has so far been alerted in the press, appears to be somewhat uncoordinated. Each Minister seems to speak specifically in respect of his/her portfolio, as that individual interprets it to be – albeit on the presumption that though a nouveau arrivée, each is already fully informed of the historical strengths and weaknesses of that portfolio’s performance.
Already is evidence of a communication style in which one speaks down to the other, rather than with the experienced, and sometimes, specialist professionals.
Published pronouncements speak to targets to be achieved, without reference to any work plan, not yet consensually agreed with those to be responsible for implementation.
One is uncertain as to whether some of the Ministerial pronouncements heard are merely the entrées to be consumed by the public, ahead of much manifestoed main courses. One would expect that the President, having overheard their various dreams, would challenge the respective Ministers to submit as comprehensive a reality plan as possible, that would reflect the undertakings of the campaign manifesto.
For it is not as if each Ministry will operate independently. That rare attribute called ‘common sense’ dictates the need to function as a team; and therefore it behoves Cabinet members to inter-relate most proactively in order to conclude what human resource needs will be required, and more critically, how they would be fulfilled – albeit within the context of the thousands of jobs promised to be created. So that preliminary offers of scholarships must relate to assessed organisational needs instead of individual perspectives.
Which means that there must be a development strategy that would involve the identification of specific programmes and the relevant skills and competencies needed therefore.
In the process, it would become necessary to review and analyse the thousands of suspect skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled personnel in the Public Service proper, and first address the capacity available (or to be made available) for their being upgraded. Such an exercise will obviously involve all the skills training and development institutions in the country, including of course those of the private sector.
But the Public Service has long been subverted by systemic management and performance deficiencies, some of which have been addressed in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service, which incidentally was not even read by the very sponsors, or else they would have been impressed by one fundamental apolitical recommendation – that is of raising the retirement age from 55 years to 60 years of age. Guyana is certainly the only country in the Caricom where the retirement age for Public Servants is below 60 years. Actually, in Barbados the retirement age in the Public Service has been 65 for nearly two decades now. Meanwhile the Audit Office of Guyana, Guyana Revenue Authority, Guyana Geology and Mines Commission – are only few of the Public Sector Agencies that observe a retirement age of 60 years.
It is also in the named Report that the matter of ‘Contracted Employees’ so much over-indulged in by Ministers has also been frowned upon, most appropriately. For intricated in any ‘Contract’ must be a performance standard to be achieved. But one fundamental contradiction is the employment of persons into normal pensionable positions, nevertheless on ‘Contract’ which earns gratuity half yearly, while a colleague with exactly the same set of responsibilities has to await pension at age 55.
What is interesting is that the politically appointed Minister exercises discrimination regarding the conditions of employment of the recruit. Intricated in the process is what is well known as the ‘theory of relativity’ – translated as meaning ‘caring for friends and relatives’. Consequently, there is insufficient specialist discipline assigned to valuing the job – totally ignoring the constipated 14 Job Grade System instituted in the Public Service some forty years ago – overlooking all the technological and other specialised skill changes that have taken place since.
Despite the mythical institution of a Public Service Commission (and a Police Service Commission) which, 20 or more years ago were ‘politically’ twinned – in contradiction of the Constitution, absolutely no attention is paid to the once respected conduct of a Performance Evaluation System in the Public Service – a vivid contrast to semi-autonomous Public Sector agencies.
As a consequence of this glaring management deficiency all Administrations merely issue regular increases ‘across-the-board’ – consistent with the ‘theory of relativity’. In blatant defiance of logic ‘contracted employees’ also benefit from these ‘across-the-board’ awards. In the end, if they become ‘victims’ of ill-informed decision-making and are likely to suffer at times of ‘political’ change.
Much of this behaviour is captured in Dr. Harold Lutchman’s Commission’s informative analyses of the Public Service.
There is also the human resources management component disdainfully embraced (or ignored) by all the appointed decision –makers, that is the existence of the position/grades of Personnel Officer – an organisational uniqueness found only in Guyana’s Public Service, while counterpart Public Sector Agencies have long practised ‘Human Resources Management’ – an embarrassing contradiction that all our Cabinets in the 21st century determinedly overlooked.
The question must be asked: how and when those resuscitated decision-makers from the past will address the future – in terms of human resources management and development, particularly since the incumbent ‘Personnel Officers’ do not appear to be appropriately trained and prepared – all the more to catch up with a challenging pandemic future.
Old-timer as I am, I cannot wait.

E.B. John

---

---