Some TDC misconceptions

Shandilya made reference to a statement attributed to Tourism Minister Shamfa Cudjoe on the need for a regulatory authority to set basic standards for all tourism operators.

I am of the view that Shandilya’s position that the authority already existed within the TDC is an erroneous one.

A regulatory authority, a supervisory body, is highly unlikely to have subsisted within the TDC or any of its predecessor companies.

A regulatory authority is an independent body created by statute, giving it powers, including disciplinary sanctions, to oversee an industry and its players.

Shandilya may have been confused as to the difference between TDC’s powers over quality assurance standards — facilitating inspections and licensing of tourism facilities and certification of industry players — and a regulatory authority’s statutory role and powers.

Shandilya is also quoted as saying that “an (A)ct and policy for the TDC to operate effectively had not been established, so the TDC became dysfunctional.” It is unlikely that a TDC could exist in recent times without references to its establishment/ registration under the Companies Act 35 of 1995 and regulations, and the Tourism Development Act, Chapter 87:22 (and regulations), which include an order of the minister declaring any tourism project to be an approved tourism project.

Speculatively, Shandilya believes “there is a difference between marketing tourism products for the island versus the brand destination of Trinidad and Tobago so one has to be clear in terms of the Act, policy and direction before they (authorities) go diving into another situation where the government agencies will be dysfunctional once more.” In general, an Act or policy to which it relates should bear no relationship to a tourism development company’s strategic goals and direction, namely, how the islands, their tourism products and services are rationalised, branded and marketed.

Appointments to a directorship of non-executive board members are a governance issue. Based on its superior skills in the relevant industry, a board may give advice on policy direction to its managing director, or other competent authority/authorities, but is not expected to set or direct strategic goals, which is a senior executive management function, except in circumstances where the company is failing for some reason.

Interference by board members sometimes happens in cases of ignorance, undeclared conflicts of interests, acting in bad faith or where it runs afoul acting outside powers conferred on it.

Interference can be manipulated to occur when an incompetent senior executive management team is appointed to positions, effecting a chain reaction of bad decision- making, the result of which may be viewed as profitable for some.

Inevitably, the consequence of interference or acting in bad faith is a failure of a duty to promote the success of an enterprise. In my view, interference without due cause and acting in bad faith are corrupt acts.

Some in the business do not clearly understand the nature of government, policy and roles in promoting efficient State enterprises.

An example of a policy initiative would be to facilitate the efficacy of the tourism industry by creating a tourism regulatory authority to perform an absent critical function, consequent to necessary approvals, funding and infrastructure.

If, for any reason, a stated policy initiative becomes skewed to the extent that the stated policy cannot reasonably be successfully implemented because appointed board members failed in their governance (ethical, statutory and accounting) obligations, both to the enterprise and to the shareholder, the seeds of dysfunctionality will continue to exist.

Kathleen Pinder via email