SEVEN QUESTIONS UNANSWERED

Is the Integrity Commission evasive?

After addressing a meeting of the Transparency Institute on February 4, Integrity Commission chairman, Gordon Deane, invited reporters to send him in writing their queries about the Integrity Commission. Yet despite this invitation, when Newsday has sent its queries about the enforcement of the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000, we have found the Commission’s replies to be insufficient, and possibly elusive. The Commission says it is constrained in its replies by the Integrity Act.

The Act in section 20 states: “Declarations filed with the Commission and the records of the Commission in respect of those declarations are secret and confidential and shall not be made public.” Yet how far should this provision gag the Commission? Surely the public right to know should push the Commission to adopt the most liberal interpretation of its powers of disclosure under this law, not the most stringent constraint. Here are the seven questions Newsday posed to the Commission on April 27. We print the Commission’s reply received Friday. Is the Commission being sufficently enlightening? Or is the Commission avoiding off the media with mere fluff? You be the judge.

SEVEN QUESTIONS THE INTEGRITY
COMMISSION NEVER ANSWERED:
 April 27, 2004
TO: Chairman Integrity Commission, UTC Building, PoS.
FROM: Sean Douglas, Newsday, Furness Building, Independence Sq, PoS.

Dear Integrity Commission,
I’d be grateful if you could answer the following queries.
Thank you,
Sean Douglas (journalist).

1. Since your paid press advertisement of March 17 urging people in public life to declare their assets/interests under the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000, how many such declarations have you received? How many are outstanding? Can you name those who did or did not comply?

2. What steps will you take to urge defaulters to comply?

3. Given your poor record in getting compliance under the precursor 1987 Integrity Act where your 2003 annual report said only one-third of declarations had been made, do you expect any improvement in compliance for the 2000 Act?
If the publication of people’s names in the TT Gazette has not been effective to boost compliance for the 1987 Act, do you expect it to be any more effective for the 2000 Act?

4. Does Integrity Commission have any other sanctions apart from publication in the TT Gazette, to pressure defaulters to file declarations? Do you intend to use those measures?

5. How does the Commission feel about the level of compliance by persons in public life under the 1987 Act?
Would the Commission rate its effectiveness in this as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory?; successful or unsuccessful?; effective or ineffective?

6. Didn’t the Commission, in its 2003 Annual Report, really miss an opportunity to make felt its displeasure at persons defaulting in filing declarations? The report spoke of publishing names in the TT Gazatte, pursuing these outstanding declarations, and telling public managers about sound management policies. But surely the Commission failed to use this golden opportunity to crack the whip at defaulters.

7.  I would like to see who has not filed their declaration under the 1987 act. Can you either list these names, or state when they were published in the TT Gazette, of course noting any person who has since made their declaration? 

HERE ARE THE REPLIES FROM THE INTEGRITY COMMISSION:
Reply to Question 1:
“The records of the Commission and all information received by the Commission are secret and confidential and the Commission is not at liberty to disclose any information pertaining to the business of the Commission except as provided in the Act.”

Reply to Questions 2 to 7:
“The Integrity Commission discerns that there is abhorrence in the society for corruption among persons in public life as well as a demand for their ethical behaviour and adherence to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago during the performance of their public duties. The Commission expects that persons in public life will file declarations as required by the law and avoid the action which the Commission is required to pursue in accordance with section 11 (6) of the Integrity in Public Life Act, 2000.
The Commission will continue to assist declarants and encourage them to file their declarations thereby precluding the action that it may take under section 11 (7) of the Act, which action was not available to the Commission under the Integrity in Public Life Act, 1987.
Notwithstanding the measures that the Commission may take for non-compliance, it is incumbent on those responsible for selecting persons to enter public life or to continue in public life, whether elected or nominated officials, to recognise the standards that the society demands of its leadership and to act accordingly when persons in public life fail to adhere to the law. The names of defaulters have been routinely published in the Gazette and forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

INTEGRITY IN PUBLIC LIFE ACT 2000
A quick read of the Act by Newsday showed Section 11(6) empowers the Commission to publish the names of non-declarants in the Gazette.
Section 11(7) authorises the Commission to apply to the High Court for an ex parte injunction to direct non-declarants to comply with the Act and to impose such conditions in the order as it sees fit.