In response to my last column, one of my Facebook readers, a former chief personnel officer (CPO) no less–I withhold his name because I am not sure he would want his identity revealed–suggested that there was no need for Advisory Committees in the work of the THA because the Public Service was sufficient.
This is what he said: ‘A well developed and trained Public Service is supposed to do what your Committees plan. For example, take Health, you have trained health professionals advising the executive.’
And: ‘Reinventing the wheel. A well trained Public Service is required to do what these committees are being set up to do. But more than that they go further. As described above, these committees will usurp the power of an elected executive.’
Either CPO did not properly understand the proposal of the column or he was being facile in his rejection.
Our Committees were not being proposed to repeat functions of the Public Service, or to usurp roles in it, or to ‘usurp the power of an elected executive’. The Public Service, with its professionals, remains in situ. The Advisory Committees would not be replacing its professionals, never mind the dubious quality of the expertise of some of them.
No, our Committees are not about doing the work of the Public Service but about providing another layer of governance and another layer of democracy in the THA. They would be appointed by resolution of the House and they would be bringing the views of the community to that place for consideration and possible adjustment and adoption of the elected members. Ideally, they should be comprised mostly of elected members, but in the loss of such members to the Executive layer and in the absence of a specific legal/constitutional provision to usher them into the House, Vanus and I could only have recourse to the next best option: external advisory committees whose constitution and recommendations would be authorised by resolution of the THA and legitimated by the people.
Our Advisory Committees are about pursuing inclusive government and development. They are about giving every stakeholder the opportunity to practise democracy and inform public policy while doing so. They are about actively linking the various subcommunities to the Executive in the House where decisions about their future are being made. And they are about investigating the choices and actions of the Executive and the Public Service. As our concept paper states, they are about ‘bringing elements of the process of policymaking to the doorstep of the citizen in their home communities/villages.’
The Public Service is not designed to do these vital jobs.
CPO either missed that focus completely or else deliberately ignored it. The focus is there in our concept paper (which he may not have had access to) and in my last column (which he had access to and still does).
Or is it that the sheer novelty of the idea automatically triggered resistance in someone conditioned by the rightness of the constitutional status quo and by idealistic and optimistic notions about the role of the Public Service as implementation support for Government?
Might he also be thinking that, on the implementation level, special-purpose companies like UDECOTT, are usurpatory of the role of the Public Service?
Let’s take a look at what the Institutional Development Advisory Committee would be set up to do. We propose that its terms of reference should include conducting of at least three months of hearings on alternative proposals put forward in the form of draft resolutions by the THA on changes in the law to reform government in Tobago and constitutional amendments for equality of status and self-government for Tobago.
These resolutions should address constitutional recognition of matters like the following:
Tobago’s natural boundaries–defined by the equidistant (median) line separating Tobago from Trinidad.
Tobago’s right to make law to support its development programme on behalf of the nation, without the interference of the Central Government, except in relation to certain selected areas assigned to the Central Government.
Tobago’s right to concurrence whenever the Central Government seeks to make any legislation that affects Tobago.
Tobago’s right to a fair and equitable allocation of the national budget to pursue its development programme on behalf of the nation.
The role of the Committee would be to seek the input of the community and experts on these matters, which it would take to the THA for resolutions to give them the force of law. These resolutions are matters of governance, not of regular public service, and the observation is offered as clarification for CPO and people like him.
And who do you think is best suited to lead the prosecution of these resolutions with the national Government? What about the Deputy Chief Secretary?