Editorial | Public Service Commission must speak

The government has made a right mess of its attempts to explain the process by which Dennis Chung was chosen to be chief technical director of the Financial Investigation Division (FID), its head.

Its most recent effort at explaining, a statement by the finance ministry, was withdrawn on Wednesday evening.

Maybe then, it is time for the Public Service Commission (PSC), specifically the commissioners, to have a go at it, giving a step-by-step account of what happened and the specific roles played by the commissioners in the exercise. They are: Patricia Sinclair McCalla (chairman), Bishop Herro Blair, Professor Denise Eldermire-Shearer, and Khadrea Folkes.

Their intervention wouldn’t merely perpetuate debate on the FID affair, or an academic exercise of limited effect. It would have the practical value of helping citizens to understand the process for hiring senior public officials on their behalf, and the rules and regulations that must be followed when circumstances and situations change. How are commissioners kept in the loop?

Should anyone question the right of citizens to such information, they must be reminded that it is taxpayers who foot the bill for the public bureaucracy.

Dennis Chung is a highly qualified public accountant who has held senior posts in the private sector. He is also a commentator on public affairs.

The FID, an arm of the finance ministry, is a quasi-law enforcement agency that investigates financial crimes as well as coordinates Jamaica’s relations with global anti-money laundering and financial crimes bodies.

Late last year when the government’s Office of the Services Commissions (OSC) advertised for a new head for the FID, among the minimum qualifications required for the job was at least 12 years’ experience in law enforcement, at least five of which had to be in a senior position. When the advertisement reappeared in January, law enforcement experience was no longer among the criteria.

DECISION OPPOSED

Mr Chung was subsequently named as the new head of the agency. That decision was opposed by the political opposition on two fronts.

Last year when the Integrity Commission (IC) questioned aspects of Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness’ finances and invited the FID to conduct a deeper probe, Mr Chung, in his role of a commentator, questioned, on its face, the quality of the IC’s investigation and its understanding of how businesses operate.

Mr Chung, at least with respect to Dr Holness’ matter, the Opposition insisted, brought to the job an implicit bias.

They argued, too, that a law enforcement background was crucial to the job, and questioned the removal of that criterion in the second round of advertisements.

This newspaper’s request of the OSC for documentary information on the processes leading to Mr Chung’s hiring were mostly denied, with the solicitor general invoking sections of the Access to Information Act (ATI) dealing with the protection of people’s privacy, or that the release of the document would be an actionable breach of confidence.

But, in the smattering of information provided, it emerged that, after the first round of interviews, a recently retired deputy commissioner of police, Fitz Bailey – who took a job in the Turks and Caicos Islands – was offered the post and turned it down.

Earlier this week, the information minister, Dana Morris Dixon, told journalists that, after Mr Bailey declined the job “the panel”, presumably the one that did the interviews, “wanted to broaden the pool of individuals that could be selected”. They removed the specific law enforcement requirement, since, she said, some heads of the FID, in the past, didn’t have a law enforcement background.

‘CONVERSATIONS’

These decisions, she said, were taken on the basis of “conversations”, for which there was no documentation.

“I do have to note again that, under the Access to information Act, when a request is made, it’s a request for documents,” Dr Morris Dixon said. “Where there are no documents, the requests cannot be honoured.”

True!

But that explanation collided with the implicit argument made by the solicitor general, Marlene Aldred, for denying the information.

Both positions can’t be true.

A new attempt at clarification by the finance ministry attempted, it appeared, to make the case that the word “or” as used in relation to substitute qualifications for senior management and law enforcement experience meant that a candidate could have one or the other. Yet, both of these were listed as separate criteria until law enforcement was removed in the later ads.

They ended up confusing everybody, including, apparently, themselves.

This episode leaves several questions and a need for real clarifications, such as how criteria for jobs are established and whether interview panels have the authority, by mere conversations, without documentation, to vary them.

How are these panels selected, and are there names? Are there codified procedures with respect to these issues? And do the PSC commissioners just rubber stamp the matters placed before them without clear documentation?

Messrs Sinclair McCalla, Blair, Eldermire-Shearer and Folkes have a responsibility to say.