Airing PSC dirty linen

As part of Public Service Reform, the Public Service Commission instituted an assessment exercise in the making of senior appointments to the posts of permanent secretary and deputy permanent secretary. In the process the Public Service Commission has operated in the same vein that characterised the commission, post independence, trampling on the rights and discriminating in its treatment of certain senior public officers.

Senior public officers entered into an unspoken contract with the commission that they would participate in an assessment exercise for promotion to the posts of deputy permanent secretary and permanent secretary. The assessment was conducted in two phases with the understanding that if you were unsuccessful in the first phase you could not proceed to the second phase. A further understanding was that if you failed the first phase you forfeited your right to promotion, albeit in an acting capacity as deputy permanent secretary. The objective therefore was to weed out of the system those who did not demonstrate basic management skills at the first phase. Has the Public Service Commission treated with all its senior public officers in a fair and unbiased manner?

The Public Service Commission proceeded to break its contract with its senior public officers when certain senior public officers whom it obviously favoured did not successfully complete the first phase of the assessment.

So the acting deputy permanent secretaries and acting permanent secretaries who failed phase one continued to be generously remunerated in these acting posts.

Many of those who successfully completed the first phase were thoroughly incensed and felt that those acting deputy permanent secretary and permanent secretaries should have reverted to their substantive posts.

The permanent appointments to deputy permanent secretaries and permanent secretaries were made after the second phase. Once again, the Public Service Commission did a right about turn and appointed acting deputy permanent secretaries to accommodate those acting permanent secretaries and deputy permanent secretaries who did not pass the second phase.

The unprincipled stand of some professionals is worth noting. Those who are now appointed, were ready to gouge out the eyes of their colleagues who were allowed to continue to act as deputy permanent secretaries and permanent secretaries after phase one. These appointees are now spouting the same tune as the Public Service Commission.

With over one hundred and fifty disgruntled senior public officers, and added to the mix, those who were disdainfully dismissed after phase two by the Public Service Commission, does the Government really think that instituting this assessment exercise one year before election would work in their favour?

C SEWDASS

Penal