est. 2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Public Service Has Become Politicised

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. Link to VOB’s recording of the program During one intervention, I explained…

,
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).

55 responses to “Public Service Has Become Politicised”

  1. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    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.

  2. David Avatar
    David

    @Bush Tea

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

  3. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ 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…

  4. nextparty246 Avatar
    nextparty246

    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,
    Grenville

  5. nextparty246 Avatar
    nextparty246

    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,
    Grenville

Older Comments
1 2

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading