|
Remarks by the
Hon. Fred Mitchell Mp
Minister of The Public Service & Foreign Affairs
Opening of the BPSU Seminar on The Agreement
Between The Government and The Bahamas Public Service Union
BCPOU HALL
25th October 2006
It is an
honour for me to be here this morning to launch this seminar by the
Bahamas Public Service Union. As I understand it, the intention of
the President John Pinder is to take you through all of the
provisions of the agreement signed between the Government and the
Union so that you will come to understand more fully what has been
agreed, and the objectives that have commonly been agreed by the
Government with your Union.
I want to
reiterate that the Government is committed to this agreement. This
is a point that I made on behalf of the Government at a meeting held
recently with Permanent Secretaries. You will know however that
there continues to be significant institutional resistance to the
implementation of its provisions. I was heartened therefore that we
have now found a way forward with the consultants for the government
Keith Archer and Frank Carter working with an implementing Committee
and with the Permanent Secretaries to ensure that the provisions of
the agreement are carried out fully.
Many of you
have asked about the question of public sector reform. I like to
use a phrase that I first heard used by the outgoing Secretary
General of the United Nations Kofi Annan. He says reform is a
process and not an end. I have likened it before by this analogy.
Reform is not like going into City Markets and buying an apple off
the shelf, which when consumed is gone. It is a continuous
process.
I would also
like to say by way of background that this society is quite well
known for talking the language of modernity and change but when it
comes to actual change, we do not want to change. The fact is to
change we simply must change. But there are many psychological,
cultural and education hurdles we have to overcome to accomplish
that simple act, in that simple sentence. Too often in the business
of the public policy of The Bahamas, the message that you get is 100
reasons why something cannot change or should not change. We trust
that now that this agreement is signed and the political directorate
of the country is fully behind it that everyone else will now see
their way clear to fall in line.
I am reminded
of a report that was done by the British on reform of their Public
Service. One of the observations that report made was that it is
difficult, as you get closer to elections to carry out a reform
agenda. You can never find common cause with the Opposition parties
on the issue because it is too easy for them to argue that the
traditional privileges of the civil service are being eroded by any
reform agenda. We run that risk now but it is a risk, which is
well worth taking because the advance of our country and the way we
do business will be threatened if we do not move ahead. It has
taken too long to get to this point. The inertia that we find in
our systems both in the public and private sector must be eliminated
and our culture should adjust to the fact that we must do things
faster, quicker better.
The agreements
signed with the BPSU and with Bahamas Union of Teachers are landmark
agreements because by them we seek to drive the process of reform
from the bottom up. The agreements contain explicitly within the
provisions a commitment to decentralization and to efficiency.
Implicitly there is an attempt to modernize the management practices
in the service so that it is less opaque, more transparent and
open.
I liken what
we are doing to what you often see in many of today’s restaurants.
The kitchens in the restaurants are left open to the public that
they are serving. That allows the customer to see just how the food
is being prepared, how it is being stored, the attention to
cleanliness and other details about food safety and preparation.
Transparency in the practices of the Service is good for the
Service. It means that decisions can be made more objectively, and
that an officer knows more clearly what he or she has to do in order
to succeed in the service.
In this
connection, I am happy to announce that the General Orders, this
contract and the Public Service Rules and Regulations are now on
line so that they can be accessed electronically. The Government
is looking at how we can accommodate the commitment cost wise to
ensure that there are hard copies of the most recent agreement
available for all.
The most
vexing internal problem for the service is the tardiness of the
decision making with regard to promotions and the lack of
transparency in the exercise. There is still too much of a mystery
about how the process is done. Many employees have the mistaken
view that somehow the Ministry of the Public Service is responsible
for promotions. In fact the promotion of an officer is firstly the
responsibility of the Ministry itself and your supervisors. The
Ministry of the Public Service is a facilitating Ministry. The
employee’s substantive Ministry sets the qualifications for
promotions, is responsible for the annual confidential reports, and
for the budgetary clearance. The Public Service Commission makes the
decision. The difficulty we have is what happens when a ministry,
department or Supervisor is simply bloody-minded and refuses to act
fairly in the exercise of their judgment with regard to promotions.
A policy review is being done to see just how to deal with this
problem. One suggestion is the formation of a management audit unit
in the Ministry of the Public Service.
We are also
looking at the possibility of a civil service entry exam, and an
equivalency exam for people who are unable to obtain the requisite
academic qualifications for promotion in the service.
As Minister,
my view is also that there are too many informal practices and
conventions that govern the decisions in the Service that do not
find their way into writing. Too much of it is vested in the minds
of a particular officer in the service, and if that officer is not
around there is no guidance on the subject. I believe that these
conventions, circulars and other policy decisions of the Cabinet
also ought to find their way into the pubic domain.
Recently at my
meeting with permanent secretaries I was able to review the
provisions of the constitution of the country and the lines of
authority in the Government. I believe increasingly there is a need
at that level for the Government to make a formal policy decision to
draft a formal policy directive with regard to the levels and limits
of the authority of permanent secretaries and how and under what
circumstances that authority is to be exercised. I am thinking of
asking the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation to help us
with the drafting of such a document.
The Minister
is the ultimate authority in a ministry and decides policy and can
give specific and general directions to the Permanent Secretary who
supervises the department from the Ministry, which directions unless
unlawful or contrary to established policy that officer is bound to
follow. Further, I was able to convey to Permanent Secretaries the
unhappiness of the government at the complaints coming from you
about the tardiness of the decision making in the area of promotions
and other personnel matters.
Too many
queries are coming to politicians about routine personnel matters
that can be solved at the level of Ministries. Too much blame is
being assigned to the Department of the Public Service and to the
Public Service Commission for matters that can be solved at the
level of ministries. I was also able to point out that the request
for documents emanating from the Department of the Public Service
and the Public Service Commission is often like running the
gauntlet.
There is also
the problem of security vetting. We have brought to the attention
of the Commissioner of Police the need for assistance in expediting
this service. The Government has even offered to bring in retired
police officers if necessary to help get these issues resolved. The
police have assured us that they are able to handle the requests
expeditiously and we continue to monitor progress in that area.
Recently, the
Cabinet decided to return to permanent secretaries the authority to
hire within their budgetary allocations persons for whom they have
delegated authority. This is subject to a sign off by the Minister,
the Ministry of Finance and the Department of the Public Service.
It is the first limited step toward lifting a moratorium on hiring
that has in my view been counter productive to the forward movement
of the service.
The moratorium
has left a skill deficit in many critical areas and the advice is
that moratoriums are blunt instruments, which do not often
accomplish the financial savings and other efficiencies that are
touted to promote them. The Service needs to get every year a cadre
of young people from each graduating class or annual birth cohort if
the Service is to remain relevant and current to the times.
Moratoriums prevent that from happening.
I am happy
then that this exercise is taking place today. It is important for
more of this to be done. I hope that you work with your president
and he works with us in an effort to ensure all that I have talked
about this morning continues: the transparency, the openness, the
objectivity. Remember, all of us have stake in reform. This
agreement is part of that process. There is no point in being afraid
of change because we really have no other choice but to change or be
relegated to the scrap heap of history.
I wish you
well during these two days and thank you very much indeed.
-- end --
|
