Ethics commission says boards need closer scrutiny
(CNS): There is a need to examine potential conflicts of interest and the capabilities of statutory board and committee members that deal with public money, the Commission for Standards in Public Life has said in a report. The commission raised concerns about a lack of transparency regarding the government’s tendering process as well as the necessity for expertise on the Central Tenders Committee in order to ensure contracts are awarded in the best interest of the public. It also said it intended to examine the controversial issues surrounding the selection of people for and the abilities of the members that are appointed to other public boards and whether they are equipped to do their jobs.
The commission said it intended to take an “in depth look” at statutory board appointments and how “conflicts of interest or corruption” perceived or real could be avoided. “The commission is particularly interested in the qualifications of members and whether or not members are equipped to make the best decisions and to handle the matters falling within their remit,” the report said. It also revealed that the commission will be considering whether specific professional expertise might be required of people appointed to serve on these bodies.
The Commission for Standards in Public Life, which was created under the new constitution as a watchdog for all public servants, tabled its second report in the Legislative Assembly last week, making a number of recommendations about what it sees as one of the most important areas of its remit – the Central Tenders Committee.
The commission says it is particularly concerned with the government’s procurement process and is making a number of recommendations about creating a more transparent system. It says members should be disclosing their business interests to ensure there were no conflicts of interest when it comes to awarding contracts for public money.
Currently the CTC acts on the recommendations of a technical team, which is usually appointed by the ministry that is tendering the contract. Those members, alongside the CTC, currently do all of their work behind closed doors and the only information that is usually made public during the process is the number of bids received and then finally the details of the winning bid. The commission is now examining how members are appointed to the CTC and noted that it should also have technical members.
“The commission believes that the membership of the CTC should comprise individuals who possess the requisite professional aptitudes and skills from which to draw their experiences in making sound decisions,” it revealed in its report. It also said the CTCwould better serve the public if it published the minutes of its meetings and its agendas, thoguh the report did not address the issue of the technical committees.
In the wake of an examination by the Auditor General’s Office, which stated that the procurement process, if followed correctly, is robust, the commission said there was scope for improvement. The CSPL said that it has asked the CTC chair to recommend improvements and address what he believes are weaknesses in the system. It has also raised the question of whether smaller contracts should also be going through the tendering process.
At present the relevant government department can award a contract to anyone it sees fit if the value is under $250,000 and the commission wondered if they should be tendered in order to preserve “honesty, integrity, impartiality and objectivity” in the doling out of public cash.
The report further revealed that the commission is still waiting on legislation that it requires in order to fulfil its constitutional mandate. It said that over the past six months it had worked on the draft standards in public life bill and the commission’s chair, Karin Thompson, a lawyer herself, has been pushing for the advancement of the law.
Category: Local News
An earlier writer suggested the small number of available and subject-knowledgeable Caymanians made it difficult to fill boards with the right people.
Do the Laws of the land prevent others from serving on public body boards ? How many of the “new” Caymanians from the 2003 status grant exercise are on these boards ? How many peoplewith Residency are there on the boards ? Do naturalised people get picked, or are posts reserved only for the indiginous few ?
Without wider participation, it just looks like cronyism.
Previous government have appointed many "paper" Caymanians and also some who are long term residents. The argument that the pool is too small to allow only honest people without conflicts of interest to serve on boards is rubbish.
It was the PPM government that changed the amount of government money that could be handed out without CTC scrutiny from $100,000 to the current $250,000. Makes you wonder why?
Expect the thumbs down later on this political blog…..go ahead. Will add my own smiley face here. 🙂
But it was the PPM…check the Hansards.
Tell the entire story – The PPM had a rule that people could not be appointed to boards unless they had relevant expertise. The PPM also had a rule that people could not be appointed to boards if they had a conflict of interest in relation to the board’s function. Unfortunately the UDP government apparently sees no need for such rules and changed the laws so that people with no expertise but with conflicts of interest could take control of boards.
Unfortunately the PPM also had rules like "Caymanization" and "let’s spend money like confetti".
I’m sure the Premier will look into this once he is back from being wined and dined by the Cruise Dock contractor in Venice.
I still can’t forget the Rooster interviews at the time of the dock contract debacle. Government MLA’s boldly stating that they did not see any problem in sidestepping transparency and anti-corruption protections if it lead to a saving of money in their perception. Anywhere else it would have lead to a resignation of the individuals. No doubt here it was down with the hope of them getting a little pat on the head from Papa Mac.
forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34)
Conflicts of interest exist in more areas that the awarding of contracts. Board appointees make contributions to the Party in exchange for appointments so that they will be able to promote their own commercial interests. Decisions are deferred or made so as to prevent competition.
What is needed is a Constitutional amendment to prohibit conflicts of interest. The reality is that certain politicians have made a career and fortunes out of corruption and they and their corrupt supporters would fight tooth and nail to prevent any threats to the conflicts of interest that provide them with profit. We can only hope that the next election will provide the possibility for change.
…and who would sit on the 90 government boards???? Where would you find those people from that do not have some type of ‘conflict’. Small island, little number of people, most related to each other one way or another.
Hope by the way, you are volunteering in your community to make Cayman better.
Nonsense – Most boards have fewer than 10 people on them and I am sure that there are more than 900 intelligent and honest people on the island. I am not sure how many contribute to the Party coffers however.
BTW – I have served on a number of government boards over the years both before and after the disastrous party system came into effect.
I can’t believe that Cayman even has an ethics committee!
It also revealed that the commission will be considering whether specific professional expertise might be required of people appointed to serve on these bodies.
Here is an excerpt from the Hansards from July 22, 2009 shortly after the UDP took power in the LA.
Hon. Juliana Y. O’Connor-Connolly: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I rise to render the Government’s comments and position as it relates to the proposed Amendment now currently before this honourable House entitled A Bill for a Law to amend the Electricity Regulatory Authority Law (2008 Revision) to make further provision in respect of the composition of the Board of Directors of the Electricity Regulatory Authority; and to make provisions for related matters. Madam Speaker, this Bill, as all and sundry would quickly recognise, seeks to amend section 4 of the principal Law, whereby it would increase the membership of the Board of Directors of the said Electricity Regulatory Authority.
Clause 3 seeks to amend section 5 of the principal Law to provide that the directors shall hold office at the pleasure at the Governor in Cabinet, and to remove the requirement for directors to have substantial knowledge in specialised areas.
The same format was followed for every other Authority/Board and passed by the UDP majority.
Does the Committee on Standards in Public Life really believe that they can have any influence over the individuals who deliberately removed those requirements that they now consider necessary?
Interesting post and something of which I was unaware. If I were a cynic I might conclude that the amendment was necessary because the UDP was unable to find enough supporters with the relevant experience to fill the boards, which would adversely reflect on the quality of their supporter base. Luckily I’m not a cynic!
Everyone should think here for a second.
It is hard enough to find people to serve on these boards much less find people that have the relevant expertise. I understand that there are around 85 government boards with an average of 8 persons per board. That gives 650-700 persons to volunteer their time. Some boards like the Central Planning Authority have up to 15 persons.
Cayman is SMALL. We have limited Caymanians that do have expertise in these relevant areas. Those that do are likely to be in the private sector and those people do not want to sit on boards as it opens up a potential of conflict of interest with their existing businesses.
Before simply downloading legislation from the UK or the EU we need to consider the unique situation that we have with our small population of 32,000 Caymanians. Most of these commissions will only bring the government to a halt as the red tape and conflict potential brings volunteers to government boards to an end.
These very valid concepts of transparency and good governance have to be put in place but must be tailored for the Cayman Islands or I predict we will have a very serious situation shortly of the cost to the country of their operation, not only from the additional 500-600 civil servants needed to support the new commissions, but from the grinding to halt of volunteers and day-to-day government functions and approvals. I can only see the advent of direct taxation to solve these costs. I have no doubt that FCO will recognize that as well.
Think before you blog.
The ideal grist for logic is fact rather than myth.
I am an older Caymanian and I would agree with you to the extent that it is necessary for Caymanians stretch themselves more to include more public service in their lives. If you read our history you will find that in years gone by we actually had laws that required our citizens to devote some of their time every year to projects that would benefit our community. There is also a tradition of doing this which continued after the law was amended, but unfortunately it seems to have been displaced by the TV remote control and partisan politics.
There are more than enough honest and able Caymanians who don’t have conflicts of interest. The small numbers argument might have provided a feeble excuse in the distant past but it no longer does if it ever did. If one government find enough people to serve on boards while also insisting on relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest, then the government that followed it in time ought to have been able to do the same if they were actually interested in appointing competent people who were not corrupt. Sadly the qualifications of honest, integrity and willingness to serve seem to have been replaced by a demand for "people we can work with" .
Not that small. The population is 48,000+ so you are talking about less than 1.5% of the population having the “privalige” to sit on Government. Not exactly a large chunk of the population.