Directors appointed to the boards of state enterprises have always had to manage a delicate balance. As political appointees, they are expected to offer fealty to the party in power and some sympathy for its agenda for development. As directors of businesses managing millions and often, billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' money, there is also a clear responsibility to serve the people of Trinidad and Tobago in both the broadest sense and in the specifics of each decision made at that senior level.
Beyond such understandings of corporate responsibility within the halls of many of these quasi-public sector bodies are the business unique stakeholders with whom state enterprises must also engage in a manner that represents value to the company as well as the interests of the State. Managing those responsibilities while having the specifics of their governance minuted at each meeting should drive home to all such board members the importance of exercising appropriate and defensible judgment in the execution of their duties. Balancing these requirements shouldn't be difficult, but in some recent high-profile instances it has become clear that there is some significant conflict at the board level in the operations of several State enterprises.
Those disruptions have led to resignations, firings and very public differences of opinion among board members, chairmen, their line ministers and the staff and line management of the companies that these boards were appointed to govern. At National Schools Dietary Services Ltd, Caribbean Airlines, CNMG and the Port Authority, there have been very public conflicts of mission and execution at the board level and the nature of many of these conflicts has led to a steady diminishing of confidence in the capacity of the Government and its appointed boards to effectively manage the business of national governance.
At stake in many of these public and quite heated disagreements are the extent to which boards appointed to a state enterprise can discuss and even resist directives given by a line minister, and the methodology that such boards might adopt when attempting to offer a dissenting opinion on a particular directive. It should be clear that there can be no support for simply and wilfully ignoring the directives of a line minister in the routine execution of public sector duties, but in cases in which such instructions may place directors in a doubtful legal position or run contrary to a commonsense reading of their duties to the company they are appointed to serve, then there should be a greater demonstration of understanding of the legal avenues open to members of a board of directors to open such matters to wider Cabinet discussion.
At least part of the reason for the seemingly widespread phenomenon of unsettled state boards might stem from the decision by the People's Partnership Government to limit the potential for interlocking directorates within public sector state enterprises by dramatically reducing the number of boards that any person chosen as a director might be eligible to serve on. Add to that delimiter the ongoing challenges that have arisen because of the stringent reporting requirements of the Integrity Commission and there have been far fewer qualified and experienced potential board members in the pool of candidates available for selection.
In some cases, the Government must, on the evidence of the last few months, be willing to admit that it has chosen some adamantly square pegs to fit round holes. Today, Minister of Finance Winston Dookeran will read the next budget and state enterprises will, undoubtedly, be challenged to take a lead in stimulating a stagnant economy. There will be considerable challenges ahead, and the Government must take steps to ensure that its most troubled boards have the manpower and training to meet the future demands that will be placed on them with teams that are unified, focused and ready to manage the nation's business.