Editorial | An assault on governance

The Office of the Services Commissions (OSC) and its legal advisers did Dennis Chung a grave injustice.

For if Mr Chung’s job description as chief technical director of the Financial Investigations Division (FID) is a secret document, it implies that there is something to hide.

Moreover, it is contrary to the principles of good governance and accountability that the job description of a senior public official, who is paid by taxpayers, should be shielded from the public, unless that person is a deep-state actor, whose dealings cannot countenance scrutiny or disclosure would be detrimental to the safety of the State. None of this ought to be construed about the head of FID, a quasi-law enforcement agency that investigates financial crimes.

In any event, it is highly contradictory and illogical that the OSC – whose actions in this matter are implicitly those of the members of the Public Service Commission (PSC) – would, quite rightly, disclose Mr Chung’s contract, yet withhold his job description. The two instruments are two sides of the same coin.

CAUSE FOR PUBLIC CONTROVERSY

But the OSC’s illogic and misfeasance – we put it no higher than that – are not confined to its contortions over Mr Chung’s terms of reference.

Equally egregious is the assault, with blunt instruments, launched with medieval ardour against the ideals of transparency, accountability and good governance in response to this newspaper’s questions about Mr Chung’s appointment, at the start of June, as the boss of FID.

To be clear, The Gleaner, as we declared previously, has no animus towards Dennis Chung, a highly qualified public accountant, who has held senior management jobs. Neither do we question the suitability of his skill sets for the leadership of FID, an agency that falls under the finance ministry.

However, implicit bias is a real and well-developed concept, whose application is relevant not only in the courts, but also in public life. And adherence to transparent processes in public appointments matters.

Therein is the cause for the public controversy that now surrounds Mr Chung.

Apart from his day job – his previous one was general secretary of the Jamaica Football Federation – Mr Chung is a public commentator, concentrating mainly on financial matters.

Last year, after the Integrity Commission (IC) issued an investigative report that raised questions about Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness’ finances, Mr Chung made comments that many people, especially the political Opposition, felt were derisive of the IC’s work and in support of Dr Holness.

That, in normal circumstances, would hardly matter. Except that the Integrity Commission, in its report, and subsequently, invited FID’s assistance in deepening its probe.

It is not known how, or whether, FID, under its acting head, responded to the IC’s request. That will now be Mr Chung’s responsibility. Given the new technical director’s past remarks, it raises the issue of implicit bias.

CRITICAL REQUIREMENT

The political Opposition believes that merely on this count, Mr Chung’s appointment is untenable. There are, however, cures for mischief of the kind, especially, in Mr Chung’s case, if he had spoken early to gain public trust on a strategy for dealing with the concerns.

However, the disquiet goes deeper over the processes that led to Mr Chung’s appointment, and now over how the OSC responded to questions about them: with prevarication and opacity.

When the advertisement for a FID technical director was first issued last November, one of the requirements was for at least 12 years of law enforcement experience, including five at a senior level. That was in keeping with the approach of at least the past two decades.

It has emerged that recently retired Deputy Commissioner of Police Fitz Bailey, who has since been named police chief in the Turks and Caicos Islands, was offered the job. He turned it down.

The recruiters, apparently, did not go for the next person on their shortlist, assuming there was one.

Within two days of Mr Bailey declining the post, the job was re-advertised – this time without the requirement for law enforcement experience, which some people insist is critical for a FID technical director. The view among this group is that the post was being shaped for Mr Chung.

The compounding impact for the OSC is the sections of the Access to Information Act invoked by the OSC for its largely sweeping denial of answers to questions posed and requests made about the appointment, which included:

. Who authorised the change in need for law enforcement experience;

. Minutes, memos or notes from meetings or other communication relating to the matter;

. The list of applicants for the job, including their backgrounds, qualifications against the original and revised job requirements.

A few crumbs were dispersed.

People who care about good governance and accountability will be particularly insulted that OSC justified its decision with Section 17 (b) (i) of the law, that releasing the information would “constitute an actionable breach of confidence”; and Section 22, which restricts disclosures “if it would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information relating to the personal affairs of any person, whether living or dead”.

Jamaica’s public agencies are quite skilled at redactions when they release information under ATI. The crumbs were redacted.

So, not only is the basis for the OSC decision flaccid, thoughtless and contrary to good governance, it is undermining Dennis Chung.

He deserves better than this.