Tweet
Some public service heads timid
KEN CHAPLIN
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Some permanent secretaries in ministries and chief executive officers of executive agencies are being blamed for the lack of probity in many ministries and executive agencies during the 18-year administration of the People's National Party's government. Ministers and junior ministers exerted a great deal of pressure and assumed some control of the ministries in areas where permanent secretaries once had full control, especially in expenditure and the employment of top-level officers. It was the ministers who called the tune and permanent secretaries and chief executive officers felt compelled to dance to it. Another factor was when some ministers wrongly conducted themselves and other ministers complained, all they received was a slap on the wrist from then Prime Minister P J Patterson. As a result the lack of probity escalated, but this is another story.
Many public service heads behaved like timid souls under the thumbs of ministers. There were no executive agencies or chief executive officers in those days. The timidity arose from their lack of job security. In the old days permanent secretaries used to head a ministry for many years without fear that their appointments would be terminated. Most of them were contracted for three years with renewable contracts, that is, if they behaved themselves. This did not provide job security, and heads of ministries and executive agencies tried not to displease their bosses, fearing that ministers could influence non-renewal of contracts, especially with a politically appointed and compliant Office of the Services Commission. Also transfers from one ministry to another were hard to come by. A period of three years is also invariably too short for heads to make any fundamental changes and implement policies to improve the functions of their ministries or agencies and at the same time run the normal affairs of the body. Many heads feel insecure with the short tenure of contracts which was done to appease ministers.
Permanent secretaries and chief executive officers of some agencies tend to carry out the wishes of ministers, whether they like it or not. In the old days, permanent secretaries and financial secretaries would put up strong resistance to questionable proposals. There are channels available to permanent secretaries and chief executive officers to challenge questionable directions of ministers.
The Financial Administration and Auditing Act is a powerful tool to ensure probity in government expenditure and to protect permanent secretaries and chief executive officers and taxpayers from fiscal abuses by ministers. Accounting officers are permanent secretaries and chief executive officers charged with the duty of accounting for expenditure on any service in respect of which money has been appropriated under this or any other Act. Once accounting officers carried a great deal of weight and could say no to a minister. But the Act has been amended four times since 1992, giving ministers more power over accounting officers.
The minister designates, in writing, public officers who shall be accounting officers, and an accounting officer is responsible for the financial administration of the department and shall be accountable to the minister for assessment and collection of, and accounting for all money, lawfully receivable by his department, ensuring that the purpose for which an appropriation approved by Parliament is accomplished, making any payment required to be made in relation to such appropriation, the custody and proper use of all materials, equipment or other public property administered by him or her, the administration of any fund for which he or she has been assigned responsibility, the discharge of any other financial responsibility assigned to him or her under this or any other enactment.
Section 19c of the Act says that no payment shall be made from the Consolidated Fund Bank Account or any other official bank account unless the voucher for that payment is certified, payment is certified and the payment is approved by the accountable officer who:
. gives such certification or approvals as the case may be, is properly authorised to do so and acts within the limits of that authority
. has taken the necessary steps to ensure that the payment may properly be made in respect of goods and services delivered or rendered in conformity with a valid agreement.
If accounting officers follow these rules and others in the Act laid down by Parliament, I do not see how they can go wrong. Permanent secretaries and chief executive officers who do not know what is happening in their organisation, especially large financial expenditures, are not carrying out their duties properly. Any minister who bypasses the permanent secretary could find himself in serious trouble if the permanent secretary reports the matter to the channels available to deal with such complaints. The channels include the financial secretary, the Permanent Secretaries' Board chaired by the Cabinet secretary, or the prime minister and governor general as last resort. If the permanent secretary fails to make a report, then he or she as accounting officer, is fully responsible. The Act is a powerful tool to ensure probity in government expenditure and protects permanent secretaries and chief executive officers, and of course, taxpayers.
KEN CHAPLIN
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Some permanent secretaries in ministries and chief executive officers of executive agencies are being blamed for the lack of probity in many ministries and executive agencies during the 18-year administration of the People's National Party's government. Ministers and junior ministers exerted a great deal of pressure and assumed some control of the ministries in areas where permanent secretaries once had full control, especially in expenditure and the employment of top-level officers. It was the ministers who called the tune and permanent secretaries and chief executive officers felt compelled to dance to it. Another factor was when some ministers wrongly conducted themselves and other ministers complained, all they received was a slap on the wrist from then Prime Minister P J Patterson. As a result the lack of probity escalated, but this is another story.
Many public service heads behaved like timid souls under the thumbs of ministers. There were no executive agencies or chief executive officers in those days. The timidity arose from their lack of job security. In the old days permanent secretaries used to head a ministry for many years without fear that their appointments would be terminated. Most of them were contracted for three years with renewable contracts, that is, if they behaved themselves. This did not provide job security, and heads of ministries and executive agencies tried not to displease their bosses, fearing that ministers could influence non-renewal of contracts, especially with a politically appointed and compliant Office of the Services Commission. Also transfers from one ministry to another were hard to come by. A period of three years is also invariably too short for heads to make any fundamental changes and implement policies to improve the functions of their ministries or agencies and at the same time run the normal affairs of the body. Many heads feel insecure with the short tenure of contracts which was done to appease ministers.
Permanent secretaries and chief executive officers of some agencies tend to carry out the wishes of ministers, whether they like it or not. In the old days, permanent secretaries and financial secretaries would put up strong resistance to questionable proposals. There are channels available to permanent secretaries and chief executive officers to challenge questionable directions of ministers.
The Financial Administration and Auditing Act is a powerful tool to ensure probity in government expenditure and to protect permanent secretaries and chief executive officers and taxpayers from fiscal abuses by ministers. Accounting officers are permanent secretaries and chief executive officers charged with the duty of accounting for expenditure on any service in respect of which money has been appropriated under this or any other Act. Once accounting officers carried a great deal of weight and could say no to a minister. But the Act has been amended four times since 1992, giving ministers more power over accounting officers.
The minister designates, in writing, public officers who shall be accounting officers, and an accounting officer is responsible for the financial administration of the department and shall be accountable to the minister for assessment and collection of, and accounting for all money, lawfully receivable by his department, ensuring that the purpose for which an appropriation approved by Parliament is accomplished, making any payment required to be made in relation to such appropriation, the custody and proper use of all materials, equipment or other public property administered by him or her, the administration of any fund for which he or she has been assigned responsibility, the discharge of any other financial responsibility assigned to him or her under this or any other enactment.
Section 19c of the Act says that no payment shall be made from the Consolidated Fund Bank Account or any other official bank account unless the voucher for that payment is certified, payment is certified and the payment is approved by the accountable officer who:
. gives such certification or approvals as the case may be, is properly authorised to do so and acts within the limits of that authority
. has taken the necessary steps to ensure that the payment may properly be made in respect of goods and services delivered or rendered in conformity with a valid agreement.
If accounting officers follow these rules and others in the Act laid down by Parliament, I do not see how they can go wrong. Permanent secretaries and chief executive officers who do not know what is happening in their organisation, especially large financial expenditures, are not carrying out their duties properly. Any minister who bypasses the permanent secretary could find himself in serious trouble if the permanent secretary reports the matter to the channels available to deal with such complaints. The channels include the financial secretary, the Permanent Secretaries' Board chaired by the Cabinet secretary, or the prime minister and governor general as last resort. If the permanent secretary fails to make a report, then he or she as accounting officer, is fully responsible. The Act is a powerful tool to ensure probity in government expenditure and protects permanent secretaries and chief executive officers, and of course, taxpayers.
...damn yuh deh yah...innah Shady Pines tuh?
Comment