Give the bulldog teeth 2

THE EDITOR: While I unequivocally support the Police Reform Bills, I must concede that the Government has handled the matter a bit clumsily. A major undertaking like abolishing the 42-year-old Police Service Commission should have been preceded by a government Green Paper, to explain the rationale for doing so, how the new Police Management Authority would differ from the Police Service Commission, and what will make the PMA more effective than the Police Service Commission. Merely publishing the draft bill for public comment is not the same, since legal rhetoric confuse most citizens. Without putting the facts forward to the people, very few understand how the PMA will make a difference. And this applies even to some Senators, judging from their superficial comments. We do not know if Prof Deosaran is for or against the changes, but he complains about “panic legislation.”

His comments that the Government should have consulted the JSC of parliament of which he is chairman, might even be interpreted as an expression of pique because he is not a greater part of the action, or in the limelight. The independents remind me of some gatherings where people wait to see how the wind is blowing before deciding their position. Questions posed by my new personal editor, tell me that I too need to explain further, why I support the new Police Service Bill. It is a commonly accepted dictum in human affairs, that responsibility and authority are inseparable. One cannot be given responsibility, without the corresponding authority – they go together. Our police service is administered by a two-headed monster. The Police Service Commission has all the authority, for employing, promoting and disciplining police officers, but the CoP has all the responsibility for management. This is our present constitution which allows Ken Lalla to shrug his shoulders with indifference: “I am not responsible for management,” while former CoP Jules Bernard complained bitterly that “he is a toothless bulldog.”

And a population under siege blames the elected Prime Minister. A former CoP once related to me, that after he shortlisted six officers for promotion to two posts, Mr Lalla’s PSC bypassed his recommendation and appointed a totally unsuitable applicant, but who performed well at an interview. While the CoP knew his men from working with them, the PSC knew them from their files. The new Police Service Bill seeks to give the CoP both the responsibility and the authority, ie give the bulldog his teeth, and hold him responsible. The role of the Police Service Commission thus changes if it is stripped of its authority to employ and discipline, but to do so would still have required an amendment to the constitution. Some persons might have been happier to leave the Police Service Commission in place, but devoid of powers to employ and discipline.

But what’s in a name? In an interview, Mr Panday refers to “the sting in the tail,” referring to the President’s power to appoint the Police Management Authority “in his own discretion,” if the PM and Panday could not agree on mutually acceptable nominees. This point is however without merit, since the President already has that power to appoint Police Service Commission members. He must “consult” both Manning and Panday, but he can chose either Manning’s candidates, or Panday’s candidates, or his own candidates. Panday also alleges that Manning wants to appoint a particular person as CoP, but since Panday is on record as favouring an executive President, this should not be a problem. In any event, he must be aware that head-hunting is common in today’s world to get the best person for the job. Under the PMA amendment the President must appoint the candidates jointly nominated by Manning and Panday. But if Manning and Panday cannot agree, the President reverts to the same option under the present constitution. Most people will speculate that Manning and Panday are unlikely to find common ground in nominating PMA members.

What I suspect will happen is that Manning and Panday would likely nominate three members each, thus presenting a common slate. This might be termed “politicisation” of the police service about which I do not feel happy. I fear that both Manning’s and Panday’s appointees will be political robots, unless perhaps their appointments are similarly entrenched as at present. But is this procedure less acceptable to the population than leaving it to the President “to appoint after consultation with Manning and Panday?” The proposed changes attempt to pattern the police service after the universally accepted management structure, where the PMA is akin to a Board of Directors, and the CoP is the CEO responsible for recruiting and managing staff.

The CEO must be accountable for performance just as in Petrotrin, TSTT, or any other corporate structure. The “checks and balances” for which some still clamour, have riddled the police service with its indiscipline. Marlene Coudray held her position because of Jennifer Baptiste, against a compliant and weak-kneed Statutory Service Commission. The culture of the public service will not change overnight, and personality cults may still prevail, but there is hope with the changes proposed. After 42 years of independence, there is no hope with the present Police Service Commission. It should be noted that the Government has already circumvented Service Commission tentacles to deal with pockets of public service incompetence. Hence TTPost, Nipdec, Udecott, Amalgamated Security prison transport, Hospital Management Co (now deceased), MTS, SWMCOL.

Michael J Williams
Maracas