Cabinet size matters

By Devon Dick

Last Friday, a 20-person Cabinet was revealed by the Portia Simpson Miller administration.The size of a Cabinet ought to be determined by the number of persons it will take to get the job done effectively and efficiently.

Based on a December 2011 Bill Johnson poll, the economy ('unemployment', 'poverty', 'no money', and 'economic crisis') and crime would be the major tasks of the Cabinet.

In compiling a Cabinet, the prime minister would have to base it on the 7 Cs: competence (the ability to get the job done); character (being honest and just in all dealings); courage (willingness to take tough decisions in the interest of the country); compassion (ability to feel people's pain and be moved to alleviate that pain); chemistry (the person ought to be a team player); commitment (loyalty to the cause); and, finally, constituency (representatives from different gender, region, power blocs and age).It is, therefore, a most difficult job to select a Cabinet.

The size of the Cabinet has cost implications, and the determinants of costs ought to be based on the importance of the work, the competencies of the employees, the expected standard of living of the employees, and the ability to pay.

It should be remembered that in both the public and private sectors, the wage bill is approximately 60 per cent of total expenditure; and in the private sector, some senior executives earn $20 million annually, and for a few that could just be the bonus.

It is above my pay scale to offer an opinion on absolute dollar figures for the cost of this Cabinet.

Additionally, my competency level cannot argue with all members of the Cabinet; not having access to their résumés. Perhaps 'time come' for the profiles of the executive to be revealed and also the rationale for selections.

Analysing cabinet placements

There was obvious rationale behind the selections of Dr Peter Phillips, Dr Omar Davies, Phillip Paulwell and Peter Bunting, etc. However, others are not easily discernible, and it would have been better if Patrick Atkinson were minister of justice and attorney general; Anthony Hylton at Foreign Affairs and Trade where he had previous success; and Mark Golding at Industry and Commerce, with his business experience.

Lisa Hanna should have been placed at Education, Culture and Youth, based on her execution of regional responsibilities and grasp of issues, and Damion Crawford with her to excite youths and advance their progress, with Maxine Henry-Wilson, former minister of education, as special adviser.

There were some pleasing developments.

The full executive was sworn in on the same day, and significantly one day after the swearing in of the prime minister. It appeared that the PM and the head of transition were decisive in the Cabinet selections and raring to go.

In addition, for the first time the size of the female component of the Cabinet was four (Simpson Miller, Lisa Hanna, Natalie Neita-Headley and Sandrea Falconer), or 20 per cent of the total. It showed that women are being recognised as being able to manage Cabinet assignments.

Equally important is the size of the Cabinet in relation to the criticism of the 19-person Golding Cabinet by Simpson Miller. Previously, Simpson Miller made the insightful observation that reducing the size was an important symbol and a sign of compassion to identify with the civil servants and citizens who are losing jobs.

Since symbolism is important, the Cabinet should not have been more than 18, based on her previous criticism. It would have been helpful if he PM had acknowledged her pre-vious criticism and then given cogent reasons for changing her mind, or apologise for not being able to fulfil that implicit promise. This could affect credibility.

Cabinet size matters, and it is important to try to get all factors right.

The Rev Devon Dick is an author and Baptist pastor. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.