Trevor Munroe | Getting accountability ‘horse’ in front of salary increase ‘cart’

The Jamaican public, who advocate better governance for our country, now have a most challenging task – how to help the accountability ‘horse’ to catch and get in front of the ‘cart’, namely the unconscionable, inequitable salary increases of the political directorate. This task arises from Prime Minister Holness’ announcement last week (June 6) that a Joint Select Committee of Parliament is to be established to “review job descriptions, and a code of conduct for ministers and members of parliament”.

This is after the 200-plus percentage increase has been granted and follows sustained and continuing public outcry – including from NIA, JAMP, the Advocates’ Network, members of the private sector, the churches and the man in the street – not against an increase for MPs and ministers, but against the unconscionable jump in salaries granted to the political directorate.

A reminder: these increases make the Jamaican prime minister’s salary over 30 times Jamaica’s per capita GDP. Compare that to the US, where the president’s salary is six times that of the average American; to the UK, where the prime minister’s salary is four times the average British citizen’s; to Trinidad and Tobago, where it is five times and The Bahamas where the prime minister is earning three times that of the average Bahamian. So, instead of the accountability ‘horse’, pulling the salary increase ‘cart’; accountability – on the basis of the prime minister’s announcement – is now having to play catch-up in order to get ahead of the cart.

In this context, we the public need to remind ourselves that according to our democratic arrangements, we should have three co-equal branches of government serving us. Namely, the judiciary, the executive (Cabinet) and the legislature (Parliament). How accountable to us are the public servants occupying each of these three branches?

In relation to the judiciary there are “conduct guidelines” and performance indicators and, as appropriate, these clearly preceded salary increases. Indeed, Judicial Conduct Guidelines applicable to the judges of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the Parish Courts were discussed and developed by the judges themselves and publicly launched in 2017. These conduct guidelines are not secret. They are published for you and I to see on the Supreme Court’s website. There we read that judges are required to “conduct themselves with integrity so as to sustain and to enhance public confidence in the judiciary”. Beyond public behaviour, judges are enjoined to observe “high standards of personal conduct”. Importantly, in the 10 conduct guidelines, judges are reminded that “despite the need to preserve their independence, judges should always be mindful that they are ultimately accountable to the populace they serve”.

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Beyond guidelines, however, our judiciary, unlike the executive and the legislature, has clear and measurable performance criteria. Again, these are not secret, they are published for all to see on the Supreme Court’s website, in a document titled Benchmarking the Future: Courting Excellence, Strategic Plan for the Jamaican Judiciary, 2019-2023. For each year of the plan, projected targets have been set. Believe it or not, each quarter in each year statistics are published by the judiciary indicating how far each branch of the Court is actually meeting the projected performance targets. For example, at the end of 2022, our Parish Courts – in relation to criminal matters – had a case clearance rate of over 124 per cent, ahead of the projected target of 114 per cent. At the same time, Trial Date Certainty was behind target – 72 per cent performance compared to the target of 88 per cent. The point is that each of us as taxpayers can see and judge for ourselves whether we are getting value for money from our judiciary. Most of all, not only are there performance criteria, but additionally, salary increases are not determined by the judges themselves, though their views are taken into account. Increases for the judiciary are based on recommendations from an Independent Commission established under The Judiciary (Amendment) Act, 1992.

As you can guess by now, the accountability framework for the other two branches is lagging way behind. In relation to ministers (the executive) there is unacceptable ambiguity. Twenty-one years ago, in 2002, then Prime Minister Patterson tabled in Parliament ministry paper #19, titled Conduct of Ministers. This ministry paper included ‘The Seven Principles of Public Life’, such as selflessness, accountability and honesty – the very same principles which the Integrity Commission has been requesting the prime minister and the political directorate to endorse with their signatures. Beyond these seven principles, this ministry paper stated, “Ministers of government are expected to behave according to the highest standard of … personal conduct in the performance of their duties.” The 20 pages of this ministry paper dealt with critical subjects such as the relationship between ministers and civil servants as well as the relationship between ministers and Parliament. Unfortunately, there is no clear evidence as to how far and whether this ministry paper has been applied, who provides oversight, and with what consequences for ministers who are not in compliance.

GLARING DEFICIT

Regarding the third branch of government – the legislature or Parliament – a code of conduct, job description and performance criteria are yet to come. This glaring deficit remains despite national consensus achieved 14 years ago and recorded in Vision 2030, the National Development Plan, that there needed to be developed “guidelines with appreciable sanctions as well as roles and responsibilities of MPs to ensure effectiveness and accountability” (page 121). Even more so, prior to this Vision 2030 target, in 1990 then Prime Minister Michael Manley appointed a committee which deliberated and delivered almost exactly what Prime Minister Andrew Holness is proposing another committee should deliver in 2023 – namely a job description and a code of conduct for MPs, among other accountability measures. This 1990/91 committee was not a lightweight body, nor did it deliver a fly-by-night report. The committee was chaired by then professor of political sociology, my late friend and colleague, Professor Carl Stone. Stone’s report recorded that Prime Minister Manley invited him to chair this committee in response to “strong protest and expressions of disapproval by the Jamaican public” of the 1990 proposal to substantially increase the salaries of members of parliament and ministers of government. Sounds familiar?

The Stone Committee included respected personalities representing the Church, private sector, civil society, trade unions, and academia. The committee held sittings for over nine months (July 1990-March 1991), conducted a national public opinion survey, did a survey of MPs themselves, and a study of the level of activity at MPs constituency offices. The committee requested and received submissions from some 62 persons, including the late outstanding leader of the private sector Oliver Clarke, former chairman of the Jamaica Labour Party Frank Phipps, current Deputy Prime Minister Horace Chang, and myself. The committee deliberated and made 16 major recommendations, including “16 specific duties for MPs to perform covering constituency and parliamentary functions”. Moreover, it recommended “an 18-point code of ethics to govern MPs performance of duties”.

Obviously, over the 32 years since the Stone Committee completed its work, much has changed. One thing has grown worse – the 40 per cent of Jamaican voters who Stone recorded as being very disillusioned with political parties and the political leadership has increased significantly. Hence, the need is greater and more urgent to institute an accountability framework to rebuild trust and confidence. Let’s not reinvent the wheel. Dust off the Stone Report, table for discussion, debate, possible amendment but mostly implementation, its proposed Code of Conduct and job description – including the voters’ right of recall. Along with that, the prime minister should cause the Jamaica Information Service to republish the Stone Report, interestingly first promulgated – with gratitude from the author – by the Bustamante Institute of Public and International Affairs.

- Professor Emeritus Trevor Munroe is director of National Integrity Action. Send feedback to info@niajamaica.org or columns@gleanerjm.com.