Public Service Has Become Politicised

Submitted by Grenville Phillips II, founder of Solutions Barbados

I was on Brasstacks Sunday on 12 March 2017 with former Attorney General Dale Marshall representing the BLP, George Pilgrim representing the DLP, Former Minister of Commerce, Consumer Affairs and Business Development, attorney Lynette Eastmond of the UPP.  I was representing Solutions Barbados.

During one intervention, I explained that the 1974 Constitutional amendment that effectively politicised our civil service is the likely root cause of all of Barbados’ problems.  Both attorneys Dale Marshall and Lynette Eastmond disputed my assertion, and claimed that the Constitutional amendment only applied to judges, while I claimed that it applied to most senior posts.

Attorney Dale Marshall then read a section of Barbados Constitution on air to attempt to prove me wrong.  I attempted to respond but an advertisement break was called and then the discussion steered to other topics.

This is our response.

Before the 1974 amendment, the Governor General had the power to hire, fire, and discipline public servants.  This ensured a professional public service without political interference.  Section 97.1 of The Constitution of Barbados follows.

94.1:  Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, power to make appointments to public offices and to remove and to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices is hereby vested in the Governor General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Public Service Commission.

In 1974, the Democratic Labour Party passed the Constitution Order to change Barbados’ Constitution.  Section 3 of the Constitution Order effectively stripped the Governor General of the power to hire, fire and discipline public servants.  This power was to be “exercisable” by persons under the influence of Ministers – thus politicising our public service.

3. (1) Subject to sections 95 and 97 of the Constitution, the powers vested in the Governor-General by sections 94 and 96 thereof and specified in column 1 of Part I of the Schedule in respect of the posts so specified shall, without prejudice to the exercise of such powers by the Governor-General, be exercisable by the persons specified in column 2 immediately opposite to such posts.

(2) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (1) and subject to the conditions specified in that sub-paragraph, the power conferred on the Governor-General by section 94 of the Constitution to make appointments to the posts mentioned in Part II of the Schedule shall be exercisable by the Chairman, Public Service Commission after consultation with the relevant Permanent Secretaries or the Chief Technical or Professional Officers, as the case may be.

Without the independent restraining power of the Governor General, the public service predictably became politicised, and this, in our opinion, is the root cause of all of our national problems. That a former attorney general and minister were unaware of this critical issue shows why Barbados is unlikely to improve under a DLP, BLP and now UPP administration.

A professional public service actively solves problems.  A politicised civil service tends towards apathy, because the employees are fully aware that their advancement is dependent on being in favour with the political party in power.  Therefore, people are effectively rewarded for doing the bare minimum on their job descriptions.

The attached Constitution Order, 1974 is a relatively short piece of legislation which specifies all of the posts which risked becoming politicised by the Constitutional change (see Parts I and II of the Schedule).

Tags: ,

55 Comments on “Public Service Has Become Politicised”

  1. David March 13, 2017 at 6:46 PM #

    Caswell do you approve this message from Grenville?


  2. enuff March 13, 2017 at 7:01 PM #

    “Without the independent restraining power of the Governor General, the public service predictably became politicised, and this, in our opinion, is the root cause of all of our national problems.”



  3. David March 13, 2017 at 7:03 PM #

    At the end of the day a GG is a political appointee.


  4. Prodigal Son March 13, 2017 at 7:07 PM #

    I listened to most of the programme yesterday and I do feel that Grenville’s heart is in the right place but he seems to live in an alternate world when it comes to politics.

    But I do wish him well.


  5. enuff March 13, 2017 at 7:07 PM #

    Laawd talk about a simplistic approach to a problem…..ah mean is there any ongoing performance assessment or competency framework? How do you remove bias from a system with populated with former classmates, fellow church members and their children etc ? Oh I know….ISO.


  6. Violet Beckles CUP Plantation Deeds from 1926-2017 land tax bills and no Deeds,BLPand DLP Massive land Fruad and PONZI March 13, 2017 at 7:27 PM #

    Public Service Has Become Politicised@ they always were nothing new, Oh! You just work up,


  7. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger March 13, 2017 at 7:40 PM #

    They need to get rid of the Governor General post, it is useless and does not suit modern times, this is a different era, no one needs any UK relics from the 50s and 60s that will continue to stagnate the majority population’s progress.


  8. nextparty246 March 13, 2017 at 11:31 PM #

    Hi David:

    The Constitution never intended the Governor General to be a political post or a mere figurehead. The GG was to maintain the professional nature of the civil service. See Constitution, section 28 below.

    There shall be a Governor-General of Barbados who shall be appointed by Her Majesty and shall hold office during office or Her Majesty’s pleasure and who shall be Her Majesty’s representative in Barbados.

    In 1974, we decided to exchange our professional public service for a political one. We have become accustomed to a Governor General with very little to do but to be a figurehead of sorts. So the young think that it was always so.

    Best regards,


  9. David March 13, 2017 at 11:53 PM #


    Today on Brasstacks David Ellis read an email from a Selwyn Smith who is said to be a public service consultant -he indicated he was surprised at your position.


  10. Hants March 13, 2017 at 11:57 PM #

    The Governor General is not elected by the people of Barbados and his duties should be ceremonial.


  11. Hants March 14, 2017 at 12:01 AM #

    Grenville said that ISO 9000 could be implemented by Government “tomorrow”.

    How is that possible?


  12. Caswell Franklyn March 14, 2017 at 12:55 AM #


    Grenville is correct that the Public Service is politicised but he came to that conclusion using the wrong data. The 1974 amendments to the Constitution gave the Prime Minister the right to be consulted on the appointments of permanent secretaries, heads of department and their deputies. Unfortunately, that amendment has been misinterpreted to mean that the Prime Minister selects persons for appointments to those posts. As a result most permanent secretaries are weak since successive PMs have either selected persons who would not insist that ministers follow the rules or selected supporters of their parties.

    Additionally, over the years, the Public Service Commission and the Police Service Commission have been constituted with party supporters and even in the case of the current Public Service Commission, David Bowen, a former minister in a DLP administration is the chairman. It is the service Commissions that recommend the appointments of public officers to the Governor-General. But the commissions are politicised and that politicisation is responsible for the indirect political interference that pervades the Public Service and the Police Force.

    Also, from 1975, as a result of those amendments, the Minister with responsibility for the Public Service was required to approve the appointments of all temporary officers but since most persons enter the Public Service as temporary officers, the pool of persons available for permanent appointments would have owed their jobs to that minister in the first place. In turn many of them made political decisions to benefit the persons who got them the jobs.

    The final act of politisation came about with the passage of the 2007 Public Service Act. It requires that persons should be appointed on merit and that persons should be interviewed but then most interviewing panels are stacked with political operatives or the persons who do the short lists make sure that their fellow yardfowls get invited to interviews.

    Grenville’s heart seems to be in the right place but he has either been misled or he has misled himself. If he gains power, and that is doubtful, he would set about fixing the wrong things.

    Oh by the way, it would be best if you ignore Selwyn Smith. He was a consultant but a requirement for a consultantcy in his case, as indeed in any case, should be that the consultant understands his subject matter. Smith failed in that respect and the Public Service has and continues to suffer as a result.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. David March 14, 2017 at 1:03 AM #


    Thank you. That was very clearly outlined.


    Do you stand corrected? This is the stuff Caswell knows in his sleep.


  14. charles skeete March 14, 2017 at 2:26 AM #

    Mr Philipps is correct. The 1974 constitutional amendments is responsible for the demise of the well organised and properly functioning public service. Of course both parties have used the constitutional amendments to their own advantage to the detriment of society at large and i would expect Mr Marshall’s thinking to be a bit off balance in this regard.


  15. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger March 14, 2017 at 5:10 AM #

    As with every law in Barbados which is misinterpreted to suit the agendas of the scum enforcing it.

    “Unfortunately, that amendment has been misinterpreted to mean that the Prime Minister selects persons for appointments to those posts. As a result most permanent secretaries are weak since successive PMs have either selected persons who would not insist that ministers follow the rules or selected supporters of their parties.”


  16. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger March 14, 2017 at 5:17 AM #

    “There shall be a Governor-General of Barbados who shall be appointed by Her Majesty and shall hold office during office or Her Majesty’s pleasure and who shall be Her Majesty’s representative in Barbados.”

    A black majority population does not need all of that colonial crap…it is destructive to the minds of young forward looking, progressive seeking people, leave it in the 19th century where it belongs for the slave minded to remain stagnant, it is toxic for today’s and future generations of black people…in a nutshell….it is useless crap.


  17. Hal Austin March 14, 2017 at 5:43 AM #

    Explain yourself, Well well. Didn’t realise you were a constitutional lawyer.


  18. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger March 14, 2017 at 6:18 AM #

    Hal….read Caswell’s comment, I cannot add to that, can only analyze the goddamn slave minded crap black men continue to practice, crave to be a part io and keep their people’s minds decaying because of it, generation after generation.., the buckingham palace centuries old scam that has never benefited any black population.

    Ya dont need a constitutional law course to understand that, i although i passed mine. When I saw Grenville’s post yesterday and knowing of the ministers and their 50 year old practice of yardfowl politics, I knew there was more to be heard, as Caswell has confirmed.


  19. Hal Austin March 14, 2017 at 7:11 AM #

    Well well,
    Two things Barbadians like: cricket and the law. Do you remember the days when we had men (they were all men) sitting about the yard in the old court complex giving advice to felons? Some of them made a good living doing that. I know one senior diplomat whose father was one of those men.
    Now with lawyer inflation such things would not be allowed, although we still allow the police to prosecute in the magistrates courts. The DPP should bring that nonsense to an end.
    The only good lawyer to come out of police prosecutors was Garry Sargeant.
    But public sector jobs have always been politicised. It is the only power that politicians have – offering jobs to their supporters.
    I remember when Sir Richard Haynes carried out an investigation in to the QEH he called for a list of employees. I am not sure if he ever got it.
    The suspicion was that lots of people on the payroll were in fact what you call political yard fowls.


  20. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger March 14, 2017 at 7:53 AM #

    Lawyer inflation should never eliminate pro bono work or legal advice for a fee.

    Hal…..the DPP Charles Leacock is useless, do not expect anything from him to benefit the majority population, he is just as useless to the people, particularly the poor, as are Fruendel and Adriel Nitwit.

    Yardfowl politics practiced by both governments through the decades has and continues to destroy any progress for the country and people as a whole, it has created a toxic environment and dominated everything, so toxic that the ministers only address individual groups of yardfowls and never the population as a whole, it has created generations of weak, ineffective civil servants who are afraid to do their jobs and tell government ministers when they are breaking the law or practicing nepotism and corruption or giving awsy cintracts to the same minorities for 30 years, or giving away millions in tax dollars to the same minority crooks with little or no return to the majority…..or giving away 40 year tax concessions to Sandals wuth no benefit to the island.or when they are selling out country and people to foreigners, read Caswell’s comment again….yardfowl politics is not a benefit.

    That’s the reason this government deserves to be unceremoniously thrown out of parliament to send a message to successive governments of the self-defeating, destructive nature of continuing the practice of yardfowl politics.

    Being a yardfowl might have seemed cute to uninformed, backward people in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s etc, and it helped enrich politicians in the last 4 decades, but now after 50 years and it’s destructive nature has manifested, intelligent politicians would do well to shun the practice, it’s not cute anymore, it’s repugnant….

    ……most of the population is now enlightened and too intelligent to get caught up in that backwardness, they have seen the damage done by politicians and government ministers to their parents and grandparents, 2 generations deliberately and maliciously kept backward and ignorant by both governments, one need look no further than the neglected and destroyed people of St. John….as evidence.


  21. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger March 14, 2017 at 8:08 AM #

    …it’s not cute anymore, it’s repugnant….not forgetting how yardfowl politics is also degrading and demeaning to the population, while giving fly by night politicians and ministers a sense of power over those whose votes they need to be elected or reelected…

    …… it is time the people take back that power. Politicians have misused and abused that power for decades, it was never more evident than with the Clico debacle when Fruendel and Dumbville Inniss turned on the victims of Clico, theur esteemed friend Leroy Parris’ victims…..and Fruendel had the nerve to issue vague threats to these victims, people in their 80s and 90s too weak to fight back, while Dumbville gloated they deserved to be robbed, that was abuse of the power given them by the same victims of Clico, the same electorate they all now so desperately need.


  22. Alvin Cummins March 14, 2017 at 12:22 PM #

    “…Before the 1974 amendment, the Governor General had the power to hire, fire, and discipline public servants.”
    The Governor General Never had the authority to hire or fire anyone. He is authorized to adhere to the recommendations put before him, and the results are not legal until he gives his approval. The commissions are the ones that make the decisions. A minister cannot influence the decisions of the Commissions; he cannot go before a commission and argue one way or another with regard to appointments. He may make recommendations, but the final decision is up to the commissioners, and the commissions are usually comprised of persons of integrity and trust; usually long standing career civil servants. You yourself have pointed out that: ” It is the service Commissions that recommend the appointments of public officers to the Governor-General.”
    Caswell, you say that Smith “was a consultant”. Was he a decision-maker? You imply that the final decision was based or decided by one person on the commission, and that the persons comprising these commissions are all easily manipulated. I disagree. By the time a clerical officer has worked his way from that of temporary clerk, served his probationary period and reached the level for appointment he would have served many years in the service. You have said : It is the service Commissions that recommend the appointments of public officers to the Governor-General.”
    Well Well,
    Why do you persist in your condemning anyone in authority as “the scum enforcing it.”, and yet you want an orderly and disciplined society.


  23. Alvin Cummins March 14, 2017 at 12:37 PM #

    to those who are of the belief that the members of parliament should not have their 10% returned to the rightful owners, it must be realized that the parliament cannot condone and codify the breaking of the law. After OSA;s intervention and restoration of the 8%. there was a legal requirement that Civil Servants should not suffer diminution of their terms of service; reduction of their salaries or terms of service. Failure to return the 10% which was a voluntary temporary withholding, for a specified period, would have been breaKING THAT LAW and in addition it had to be paid during the present financial year. I am disappointed that so many BU contributors adopt an attitude that it is wrong to give back people what is rightfully theirs.


  24. Caswell Franklyn March 14, 2017 at 1:28 PM #


    Would you please stop trying to mislead BU. The 10% reduction in MPs pay was not voluntary. The Minister of Finance has the power to make an order, which must be approved by both Houses of Parliament, to increase or decrease the salaries of MPs. He did that in 2014.

    The constitutional amendment by the Arthur Administration only deals with public officers. MPs are not public officers. You are doing an apple and orange comparison.

    Sent from my iPad


  25. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger March 14, 2017 at 1:39 PM #

    Alvin..if they are scum misusing and abusing the power given to them by the electorate….what do you suggest I call them….tell me.

    Alvin likes to lie and lie and lie…., the public servants still have not had their rightful salaries restored, those ministers had to be shamed into taking a 10% pay cut and now the economy is worse because of their incompetence, they have restored their salaries, 2 weeks later, they got the island on the brink of default.


  26. Exclaimer March 15, 2017 at 7:10 PM #

    Here is an open letter from Grenville addressed to Prime Minister Stuart.


  27. David March 15, 2017 at 11:49 PM #

    Dear David:

    The Constitution of Barbados gave the power to hire, fire and discipline public servants to the Governor General, who is appointed by the Queen. That is incontrovertible. We are a Constitutional Monarchy. This was designed to protect the public service from becoming politicised.

    While the Constitution states that the Governor General acts “in accordance with the advice of the Public Service Commission”, the GG is not obliged to do so. The GG must maintain the professionalism of the Civil Service and must not allow it to become political. That is why he can reject the advice of the PSC. The relevant section of the Constitution follows.

    “32. (4) Where the Governor-General is directed to exercise any function after consultation with any person or authority he shall not be obliged to exercise that function in accordance with the advice of that person or authority.”

    I understand Caswell’s argument. He is looking at later legislation and practises that further politicised the public service. I was not referring to any later legislation. I was referring to the first constitutional change that started the proverbial ball rolling – the root cause. Therefore we are both right – except where Caswell claimed that I was wrong. Please note that Caswell is smart – but he is not infallible (and neither am I).

    I would happily discuss Selwyn’s opinions. But we should remember that neither he, Dale Marshall, nor Lynette Eastmond are infallible – their opinions can be challenged, but they should be done so with evidence so that we can all benefit. I have presented ample evidence. I await theirs.

    Best regards,


  28. Caswell Franklyn March 16, 2017 at 1:16 AM #


    Please read section 32. (3) not (4). The Governor-General does not make appointments to the Public Service after consultation with the Public Service Commission. By the way, please stop misleading yourself, the order that you cited has nothing to do with the constitutional amendments of 1974, which became effective on January 1, 1975. That order was made in April 1974 and given retrospective effect from January 1, 1974. It came about before the amendments. That is why I said that you were right about politicisation of the Public Service but that you used the wrong data.

    Sent from my iPad


  29. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger March 16, 2017 at 7:23 AM #

    I wish Grenville and other politicians would wean themselves off the colonial slave mentality they are still so proud to carry and focus on protecting their own people for coming generations , even if it means making amendments to the constitution which is doable…..maybe the politicians are nit aware, but they now control the constitution, start acting like it.

    Black men and women still carrying a colonial slave mentality in 2017 is ugly and sends the wrong message to existing and future generations of young black people….get over being enslaved by and ruled by wild animals in buckingham palace already……sheesh.


  30. Hal Austin March 16, 2017 at 7:39 AM #

    The pubic service has always been politicised. If we really want a meritocratic system let us have entry and promotion by a blind examination. But the PS should always be a choice of the minister since trust (and competence) is the key.


  31. millertheanunnaki March 16, 2017 at 11:23 AM #

    @ Hal AustinMarch 16, 2017 at 7:39 AM

    Agree about the blind examination. But your view on the choice of the PS is somewhat off.
    Unless you want to turn that position into a politically appointed post whose holder can change with any new minister or administration as pertains in the American system of governance or even locally with the appointment on contract of CEOs of statutory corporations.

    The poor performance of the local public sector given the fiscal strangulation and its developmental inertia cannot be put entirely on the political class making up the Executive.
    It seems that the senior managers have sold their professional souls on the altar of personal aggrandizement and self-interest.

    Unless the politicians behave like little bullies in the playground and so-called professionally-trained senior managers are forced’ to cower in frighteningly obsequious subservience in colluding to break the law we cannot understand how the managerial rot as highlighted year after year in the Auditor General’s report has been allowed to spread so far and deep.

    These top managers are the ones legally entrusted with the authority to execute their responsibilities not only as CEOs but also as Chief Accounting Officers.

    No politician can be corrupt in any negatively impactful way unless aided and abetted by the chief accounting officer(s).

    These top managers, well trained at taxpayers’ expense, ought to be held just as culpable (or even much more so) as the ‘less technically competent’ politicians temporarily sitting in the seat of policy direction.


  32. nextparty246 March 16, 2017 at 10:35 PM #

    Dear Caswell:

    Please review the evidence.

    On the Constitution
    32.3 specifies that the Governor General shall comply with a recommendation.
    32.4 specifies that the GG is not obligated to follow advice.
    94.1 specifies that the Public Service Commission advises not recommends. Therefore, the GG is not obliged to facilitate the politicisation of the public service.

    On the Constitution Order, 1974
    As I previously explained, I was looking for the root cause. That root cause is the Constitution Order, 1974 which effectively changed the Constitution allowing public servants under influence of Ministers to hire, fire and discipline most public servants.

    Caswell, please note the sequence of events. My point was that the Constitution Order of 1974 effectively politicised a wide selection of public servants. The BLP and the UPP then claimed that the 1974 changes to the Constitution only narrowly applied to Judges (it actually applied to more than judges). We are talking about two separate things. I think that the earlier Constitution Order of 1974 had a greater impact on politicizing the public service than the later Constitutional changes. How can this be the wrong data? Please explain in detail.

    Best regards,


  33. Caswell Franklyn March 16, 2017 at 11:25 PM #


    In the article, you stated:

    “During one intervention, I explained that the 1974 Constitutional amendment that effectively politicised our civil service is the likely root cause of all of Barbados’ problems.”

    I agreed with that statement but I said that you used the wrong data to come to that conclusion.

    You are now saying in the last paragraph of your 10:35 p.m. comment that the 1974 order had a greater impact on politicising than the later constitutional changes. That is basically incorrect; the 1974 order merely relieved the Governor-General of the mundane task of personally approving every appointment, acting or otherwise. The power was delegated to the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, permanent secretaries and some other senior officers, like the Chief Education Officer and the Director of the QEH. The order did not delegate anything to any ministers. As a matter of fact, no Minister has the power to fire a public officer as you suggested.

    You are switching your mouth when confronted with the facts. You are behaving like the DEMS


  34. David March 17, 2017 at 5:05 AM #

    @Caswell and Grenville

    How difficult could/should it be for two intelligent people to interpret a law? Now that both of you have shared positions it should be obvious the correct interpretation.


  35. Hal Austin March 17, 2017 at 5:45 AM #

    Ministers should not have PSs imposed on them. They should be people of their choice and on a limited contract ie for the five-year period of the government. The permanent secretary is too central to policy to be randomly chosen.
    In fact, in the Whitehall model, the PS is responsible for the management of the civil servants on his/her team, while the minister is responsible for policy decision-making.
    At present we hve a system of permanent secretaries stepping in to dead people’s shoes. That is not a meritocracy, it is buggin’s turn – the circulation of mediocrity. If you stay long enough, keep you nose clean, and you too will become aa PM.


  36. Bush Tea March 17, 2017 at 7:51 AM #

    Steupsss @ Hal
    This is Barbados skippa, not England.
    When ministers get to choose the PS working with them, we get the shiite that we now have…
    Does the US President get to choose his congress and House members?

    The PS is meant to be a PROFESSIONAL who has the knowledge to guide the idiots we elect AND to frustrate any shiite emanating from the crooked brass bowls.

    Persons who rise up through the ranks demonstrating the TRAITS of such professionalism should be the ones appointed to those roles….
    Which Minister would choose the current Auditor General as his PS…?

    Sometime you can talk a whole roll….


  37. Caswell Franklyn March 17, 2017 at 7:59 AM #

    Thank you Bushie for that response to Hal. He obviously does not know or understand the conditions on the ground in Barbados. I suspect that his interventions on BU make him feel closer to home. So the more he intervenes the closer he feels. This call of the wild is causing him to write on things that he does not understand.

    Sent from my iPad


  38. Hal Austin March 17, 2017 at 8:35 AM #

    Bush Tea,
    I realise that Barbados is unique. But stepping in to dead people’s shoes is not a good administrative system. A modern, advanced system would be meritocratic and based on ability, and not length of service.
    I am not taking about how things are done in Barbados; I am talking about how things should be done.
    Talk about feeling closer to home is juvenile nonsense.


  39. Gabriel March 17, 2017 at 9:28 AM #

    The PS is the Authorised Officer in the ministry.Most of them carry out their duties with a clear understanding of whose neck is in the block.I have had more than a fair share of sitting at tables with them.I have knowledge of PS’s staring down stupid Ministers who can’t control their mouths and guess what……the PS comes out shining all the time.Even a PM had to seek advice from Caswell on how to deal with a no nonsense PM.Caswell told that lying,cheating!theifing PM,to have the man transferred and which he did.We are aware of former PS Lionel Weekes,a diehard Dem from Licorish Village(he always remind those who would listen that he’s a LV boy)Weekes complained for a Minister named Byer who wouldn’t take his advice and was doing foolishness in her ministry.She got moved.She is still doing foolishness and messing up.
    It is well known that Barrow was a bully and couldn’t always get his way.He changed the Constitution to get around the PS’s, judges and top civil service appointments.Caswell can spin what he likes.That fact is the bottom line and it was so from 1974 onwards.Dems like Harcourt Lewis,Brannie Collymore,Sam Headley would push Barrow’s agenda like a groundsman rolling a cricket pitch in the old days of elbow grease.Of these 3,Sam was the most insistent and persistent in pushing the Barrow name telling big people that they have to thank Barrow for their jobs and their salary and their position,causing a big problem in the Defence and Security ministry with some supervisory staff who were made to feel like beggars.


  40. Caswell Franklyn March 17, 2017 at 9:28 AM #


    It is not a question of interpreting any law. Grenville simply cited the wrong piece of legislation and like a true politician, he is refusing to accept that he is wrong.

    Sent from my iPad


  41. Caswell Franklyn March 17, 2017 at 9:40 AM #


    Why are you attacking me? I am not spinning anything. I agreed with Grenville but I said that he cited the wrong piece of legislation to prove his point.

    I might be getting old but I do not recall advising a PM to transfer a PS. Please remind me. Oh, by the way, Weekes was the one transferred.

    Sent from my iPad


  42. lawson March 17, 2017 at 9:46 AM #

    St Patrick drove the snakes out of ireland …now we know where they all went


  43. nextparty246 March 17, 2017 at 11:23 PM #

    Dear Caswell:

    I am normally persuaded by evidence. When evidence does not support my position, I willingly and happily amend my position because I always want my positions to be supported by irrefutable evidence.

    My position was that the Constitutional changes in 1974 allowed persons under the influence of Ministers to appoint a wide section of public servants, when before, that power resided solely with the Governor General. The BLP and UPP stated that those changes were limited to judges. However, the Constitution Order of 1974 specifies that it applies to most public servants.

    Caswell, I have been consistent on this. When Dale Marshall read from the Constitution from his tablet on Brass Tacks Sunday, I pulled out my computer to read from the Constitution Order, 1974 – that can be verified by those present. However, my lap-top was interfering with the microphones and I did not get the opportunity to respond. So I sent the legislation to David Ellis and also posted it on line the following morning.

    Only you have claimed that this is the wrong legislation. However, you are not providing robust evidence to support your opinion. You told me to examine the Constitution cl 32.3. However, Cl 32.3 is not relevant to the discussion since the PSC only advises, not recommends. Therefore, Cl 32.4 is the relevant clause – as I had quoted.

    You stated that the Constitutional amendments actually commenced in 1975. You also confirmed that the Constitutional order was the earlier legislation. This only supports my point that the Constitution Order, 1974 is the root cause of the politicization of our public service.

    You then claimed that the Constitution Order, 1974 “merely relieved the Governor-General of the “mundane task of personally approving every appointment”. This is incorrect. The GG previously had the sole constitutional power to hire, fire and discipline a wide range of public officials.

    Caswell, my main focus is not on how the law was practised, but rather, what the law actually states. Do you know whether the GG requested to be freed from these “mundane” tasks?

    Best regards,


  44. Caswell Franklyn March 18, 2017 at 12:10 AM #


    This is the last time that I will address you on this matter. You are wrong but annoyingly consistent in your misinformation.

    The 1974 order that you incorrectly referenced did nothing new. It merely consolidated a series of delegation of functions orders, namely:

    1. The Delegation of Functions (Police Service) Order, 1967 and The Delegation of Functions (Police Service) (Appointments) Order 1967 published as L.N. 59A

    2. The Delegation of Functions (Public Service) (Discipline of Prison Officers) Order. – S.I. 1970 No. 35

    3. The Delegation of Functions (Public Service) (Appointments) Order, 1970. – S.I. 1970 No. 149

    4. The Delegation of Functions (Public Service) (Transfer and Acting Appointments) (No. 2) Order, 1970. – S.I. 1970 No. 229,

    5. The Delegation of Functions (Public Service) (Unestablished Staff) Order, 1970 – S.I. 1970 No. 230

    6. The Delegation of Functions (Non-Established Offices on the Staff of Heads of Missions) Order 1971. – S.I. 1971 No. 84.

    7. The Delegation of Functions (Public and Police Services) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, 1973. – S.I. 1973 No. 212.

    Grenville, it would be wise to leave this subject alone. If I were not certain of the information that I published, I would have declared that up front.

    Sent from my iPad


  45. Bush Tea March 18, 2017 at 7:32 AM #

    @ Caswell
    This is the last time that I will address you on this matter. You are wrong but annoyingly consistent in your misinformation.
    Lotta shiite!!!

    You surely did not acquire that haughty attitude at school…. must have been gleaned during your BLP years….
    Boss, just because you personally understand something clearly does not make obvious to others… Grenville has been respectful and diligent in seeking to see your point …and such a dismissive tone on your part is not warranted.

    In any case, Bushie thinks that the two of wunna talking shiite. …..nitpicking over trivialities.
    It is agreed that the change in legislation is responsible for the lackie-style snivel service we now have, as compared to the proud professionals we had back then.

    It was done because our ‘super politicians’ back then (EWB and Tom) thought that they were God-sends for Barbados, and that they would be around for a long time to weld the influence that they legislated…. They were wrong on BOTH counts.

    Who REALLY gives a shit which exact piece of shiite law was the cause?
    Let us agree to move on…


  46. David March 18, 2017 at 7:38 AM #

    @Bush Tea

    Even if your conclusion is correct the inability of two of Barbados’ finest addresses logical thought -cognitive stance?


  47. Bush Tea March 18, 2017 at 8:01 AM #

    @ David
    Not really.
    What they are debating is extremely complex. It is about what caused the changes in the structure and focus of the Civil Service..

    No one can REALLY determine the exact CAUSE of human behaviour, it is much too complex an issue. In some jurisdictions, a change in the law such as we had, COULD have resulted in an even more professional public service. It is therefore likely that they both could be correct….. or both wrong.

    Here we have two different (but viable) possible explanations for what happened to our Civil Service… from two intelligent Bajans who both refuse to accept that the matter may be much more complex than their own perceptions.

    As Caswell started by saying, Grenville is correct, but (Caswell thinks that) the exact cause is slightly different…..
    Well DUHH!!!!

    When we finally get the REAL facts we may find that the actual breakdown came because someone was liking someone else’ s wife …and changes were effected to get at that someone in response…

    For example, Caswell should know that the reason why we no longer have a Civil Service post of ‘Government Electrical Engineer’ is because someone made Bizzy vex…. That would never show up in any assessment of the legal steps taken….


  48. Caswell Franklyn March 18, 2017 at 8:29 AM #


    I am anything but haughty but I will not continue to engage Grenville on this matter. His persistence shows how dangerous a prime minister he could be if Solutions formed the government. I think that he means well but refuses to back down in the face of overwhelming evidence that disproves his thesis. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    Grenville realises that there is a problem but he is danger of fixing the wrong thing. This is not his area of expertise and I firmly believe that he is relying on someone that he trusts. Without trying to be haughty or blowing my own trumpet, there are few experts in Barbados’ Public Service. Should I go on and sound haughty?

    Sent from my iPad


  49. David March 18, 2017 at 8:32 AM #

    @Bush Tea

    The issue here is the interpretation of a clause or two recorded in English and meant to make clear what is the law for the benefit of ordinary and all Barbadians.


  50. Caswell Franklyn March 18, 2017 at 9:02 AM #


    This is a very simple matter. The 1974 constitutional amendment are responsible for the politicisation of the Public Service. The Delegation of Functions Order that Grenville cited had absolutely nothing to do with that process. It in not a matter of interpretation; it is simply that the person advising Grenville does not know what the hell he is talking about.

    Sent from my iPad


  51. Bush Tea March 18, 2017 at 9:41 AM #

    LOL @ Caswell
    From the very beginning Bushie advised Grenville to seek your advice, not because wunna would gel, but because the two of wunna are two of the most stubborn individuals in Barbados …who have good intentions…. 🙂

    The good thing about Grenville is that he is reaching out to understand your argument. You seem to think that it is obvious, but it isn’t …. not for an engineer who normally deals with mathematics rather than people. Give him some slack.

    Think about it Caswell, the REAL reason for the politicisation of the Public Service could be the cowardly acquiescence of the hierarchy at the time. Had they the balls to revolt, they could have defied both Barrow and the stupid acts that were passed… (and which COULD NEVER HAVE PASSED WITHOUT THEIR COOPERATION) ….(files are SOOOO easily lost…)
    It is not as simple as you put it, and is indeed subject to various interpretations.

    There is no benefit is having your particular explanation accepted as gospel when we all agree on the net result.


  52. David March 18, 2017 at 9:47 AM #

    @Bush Tea

    This time the net result is agreement. What about those about those times the net result is disagreement?


  53. Bush Tea March 18, 2017 at 9:57 AM #

    @ David
    What about those about those times the net result is disagreement?
    Boss, the more disagreement the merrier….
    Then we all get to learn things that we did not even know we did not know… 🙂
    …unless of course Caswell decides to shut down the discussion.

    Don’t you understand that this is why BU is unbeatable?
    This is what education is about, not a Stockholm Syndrome type of situation where everyone is expected to agree with the masters…

    Liked by 1 person

  54. nextparty246 March 19, 2017 at 11:30 AM #

    Dear Caswell:

    I am also an adjudicator. I do not make a decision on a dispute until I am convinced of the truth of a matter, and I am normally convinced by the rigorous scrutiny of relevant verifiable evidence. I am not convinced with mere words (not even those spoken by a Pope) and I have never been convinced by the insults or arrogant statements of any of the disputing parties – and in the head of a dispute, they may be intense (please do not take offence – I am not directing any accusations your way, I am simply explaining my method of being convinced.)

    I was not able to locate most of the Orders that you specified in my library, and they are not included in my copy of the Consolidated Index (compiled by the UWI Law Library). I will visit the Law library on Monday to investigate.

    I have read several rules and orders by the Governor General where he delegates some of his authority under Clause 63(2) of the Constitution. However, all of these rules and orders left the sole power to hire, fire and discipline the civil service, in accordance with Clause 94.1, with the Governor General.

    You may tell me whether any of the legislation you mentioned (except the Constitution Order, 1974) actually delegated authority to others under Cl 94.1. If they do, then I willingly and happily stand corrected. If they do not, then there should be no negative consequences for anyone, because all of us learn by shifting positions as we converge towards the truth. Only those with god-complexes think that they have nothing left to learn in their area of study – and I am not one of them.

    Best regards,


  55. nextparty246 March 25, 2017 at 5:53 PM #

    Dear Caswell:

    I was able to review the legislation and can confirm that the context of the earlier (pre 1974) legislation was to allow some of the Governor General’s power to be exercised by others; however, in a very limited fashion.

    1967 LN 59A – Power granted to the Commissioner of Police to make appointments to the office of CONSTABLE.

    1967 LN 61A – Power granted to the Chief Personnel Officer to appoint and discipline UNESTABLISHED staff.

    LN 89, 1967 – Power granted to the Chief Personnel Officer to make appointments on TRANSFER and ACTING positions. However, only when the officer to be appointed was the most senior eligible officer.

    SI 1970 No. 35 – Power granted to the Superintendent of Prisons to discipline PRISON OFFICERS.

    SI 1970 No. 149 – Power granted to two members of the Public Service Commission to appoint all persons to hold or act in positions with a maximum annual salary of $4,140.

    SI 1970 No. 229 – Power granted to Chief Personnel Officer to make appointments on TRANSFER and ACTING positions – only when the officer to be appointed to act in the office was the most senior officer eligible. Power granted to the Chief Education Officer to appoint ACTING teachers and discipline them.

    SI 1970 No. 150 – Power granted to the Chief Personnel Officer to make appointments on TRANSFER and ACTING positions, only when the person to be appointed was the most senior eligible person.

    SI 1973 No. 212 – Power was granted to a wider range of persons to make appointments to lower level staff, mostly as per the above SI and LN legislation. Power granted to the Chairman of the Public Service Commission to make appointments to senior posts. To come into operation on 1 January 1974.

    SI 1974 No. 122 – Corrected deficiencies in SI 1973.

    Therefore, before 1974, limited power was granted to specific people to appoint persons to transfer and acting positions, provided that the appointees were the most senior eligible persons available. There were also limited disciplinary powers granted to discipline unestablished staff, prison officers, and acting teachers. In 1974, almost the entire public service was appointed by persons under the influence of Ministers.

    The Constitution Order, 1974 allowed the GG’s powers to be exercised by others. However, he could still exert them to prevent the gross politicization of the public service if he/she wished. The Service Commissions (Public Service) Regulations (CAP 34), 1978 effectively sidelined the GG’s public service appointment functions, and the Public Service Act (Cap 29), 2007 effectively shut him/her out. However, in my opinion, it was the Constitution Order, 1974 that placed most of the public service under political control and established the rot.

    Best regards,


Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: