06 August, 2010

Service Commissions


Service Commissions:  The second guarantee of transparency in the government of a British Overseas Territory (BOT) is the existence of constitutionally guaranteed, independent, Service Commissions.  In the smaller BOTs of the West Indies, all appointments to the public service, the teaching service, and the police service, are by our Constitutional provisions in the hands of one person.  That is the Governor.  He delegates this responsibility to a local Deputy Governor.  Both of them carry out their responsibilities with no accountability to anyone.  In a properly regulated, democratic BOT the Governor or Deputy Governor would be required to act on the advice of the Service Commissions.
The reason for that constitutional development is obvious.  A Governor whose powers of appointment to the public service is unrestrained will of necessity have to rely on his cronies and advisers.  He will have no personal knowledge of the individuals and characters whose public service come up before him for a ruling.  His local deputy will be related to half the local population and have grown up with most of the others.  Under such a system, no matter how well-intentioned, the public will not accept that there is transparency and fairness in public service appointments.  This is a classic case of government by man rather than by law. Such appointments and related matters should instead be constitutionally placed in the hands of a local, professional, and independent Public Service Commission, governed by appropriate laws and regulations.
It is unfortunate that the corrupt and perverse regime that has been permitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to run our sister BOT of the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) has given Kate Sullivan, the FCO legal adviser, the opportunity to recommend, in her recently-released draft recommendations, clawing back from that unfortunate BOT some of the elements of self-government that had only recently been granted, and repositioning them in the hands of either the Governor or the Secretary of State.  No doubt, that reactionary step is well-deserved in the TCI.  God knows they have blotted their own copy-book often and badly enough. 
We can only hope that in the more sensible, better-regulated territories of Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands, Anguilla and Montserrat, no such retrograde step is contemplated.  Such an undeserved development would be an outrage of unacceptable proportions.
Related Posts:

5 comments:

  1. HOW IS THE PROBLEM SOLVED BY GIVING MORE POWER TO A BAD GOVERNOR?

    Kate Sullivan is far off base.

    The problem is not really one of corruption, it is BAD GOVERNANCE.

    How is the problem solved by giving a BAD GOVERNOR more power?

    “Political stability is sustainable only when power is grounded in the people because all other ground is sinking sand.”

    "....one should not forget that the island also had some arrogant and incompetent governors."


    Colville Petty, Anguillian Historian Commemorative Magazine Anguilla - The Road to
    Freedom.


    (Posted by LJ)

    ReplyDelete
  2. C. Petty is an honourable man. Nothing has changed in years, so he needs to speak up again.

    For every life that's lit with love, many more are racked with pain
    You talk to me of sunshine, when it's pouring down with rain...... - Scotty

    ReplyDelete
  3. How is it that in these bad economic times the Government has employed the "Auto Doctor" Derrick Gumbs to sit in an office an pretend to be working for one hour or two during a week. He became employed within the week of the salary cuts. What are his job functions? How much is he paid?

    ReplyDelete
  4. How come the media has not mentioned anything regarding the Anglec shareholders meeting that took place on July 30, 2010, where three police officers were stationed. Where the Governor sent a letter to the CM of Anglec informing him that government shares could not be used in the voting process as the matter was not brought to EXCO for approval. Also all the board members whose names were to be rejected were all retained with votes in excess of 3mil.

    Some persons who are employed on radio programs names were proposed to be on the new board. So it is not that the stations do not know. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Reply to the last post.

    CORRUPTION!!!!

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.