In 1999 THE?OWEN?ARTHUR?ADMINISTRATION established a high-powered committee to review and re-examine the Service Commissions (Public Service) Regulations.
This was intended to pave the way for a new Public Service Act which would enhance appointment and promotion prospects for public servants, according to the May 11, 1999 DAILY NATION.
Senator Glyne Murray, then Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office and Ministry of the Civil Service, said: “These regulations are more than 20 years old and they need to be re-examined in light of changed circumstances and needs in the public service and general society.”
He said attention must be paid to “succession management”, which allowed for better management of human resources in the sector.
Murray noted that succession planning in the Public Service was conducted “in a crude and ad hoc fashion” where certain individuals had been identified for specific posts in a very informal and unscientific way.
He said this method also failed to keep track of the changing skills of individual public officers.
The act was finally proclaimed at the end of 2007 and within four month some concerns were already being pointed out.
In the April 21, 2008 DAILY NATION Barbados Union of Teachers president Karen Best charged that new regulations governing job promotions, recruitment and appointments would shut out some teachers from advancing to become principals and other senior officers.
“In the past, if there was a vacancy in the teaching service, the Ministry of Education would advertise the vacancy and the Public Service Commission would interview applicants and fill the vacancy,” she explained.
“When another vacancy occurred, the process would be repeated. However, under the new Public Service Act, a short list would be created of the unsuccessful applicants, with these persons ranked in order of preference.
“The ranking system runs for two years and during that time the people on this short list will be the ones to fill similar vacancies occurring in the service,” Best said.
She charged that such a system would “lock out” people who had opted, for one reason or another, not to apply to fill the original vacancy and those who were now in line for such posts because of factors including a higher level of academic achievement.
“We have a great difficulty with this system because it is not fair and it shuts out too many people who would like to advance their careers,” Best said.
Pointing out that some interviews had already been held to fill positions, she stressed that whenever a vacancy fell anywhere in the system, all teachers should have a chance to apply to fill it.
“We have in the teaching service a situation where a number of persons will be retiring in 2009, 2010 and 2011. There will constantly be vacancies coming up. So we can’t have people locked out of the system of promotions.
She conceded that one good side of the act was that it provided for teachers who had been working for a minimum of three years to be appointed. However, she pointed out that the new Government “has not acted on the appointments as yet”.
In the May 2, 2007 MIDWEEK NATION National Union of Public Workers (NUPW) president Walter Maloney suggested that a system of continuous assessment is needed in the public service if supersession and rumours of advancement through political affiliations are to be averted.
Calling the perennial problem of supersession a “bugbear”, Maloney said the situation was exacerbated by “the perception that a lot of the appointments are based on political affiliation”.
“Let us look at the Performance Review and Development System model,” he said.
“This is a model we’re doing in public sector reform dealing with continuous assessment for promotion. We have to sit down and look at it and how we deal with it.”
He charged there must be fairness and transparency in the system, noting that continuous assessment would increase confidence in Government’s system of promotion.
Maloney said when the NUPW investigated charges of supersession, it was usually told the new person was promoted based on an interview.
“We are saying we’re never allowed to see what kind of measurements are used,” he said, adding it was this lack of transparency that led to charges of promotion based on political affiliation.
Supersession, he explained, occurred when someone was promoted to a position over someone who had been acting in that position, or over someone who was qualified, even though the promoted employee was not necessarily more qualified for the post.
In addition, former Attorney General and current Prime Minister Freundel Stuart described the changes to the Public Service Act as “a horrible injustice” which was causing the Democratic Labour Party Government much headache and adversely affecting long-standing public workers, including prison officers.
According to the April 25, 2009 SUN ON SATURDAY Stuart said Government was planning to amend the act that was “rushed” through Parliament between October and December 31, 2007.
He said it had affected the promotion and appointment of several prison officers because of stipulations pertaining to academic qualifications. He said there were a number of officers who had entered the service without qualifications and had performed their roles admirably, professionally and with dedication.
Stuart remarked that it was an injustice to side-step such people for promotion or appointment to various posts in which they were acting because they did not have basic qualifications.
The Home Affairs Minister acknowledged that some had sought qualifications and others had entered the service with the necessary certification and they were to be commended, but those who performed at a high level without qualifications should not be disadvantaged.
According to the May 24, 2009 SUNDAY SUN, retired diplomat Peter Laurie noted that the whole process of recruitment, promotion and remuneration needs to be geared to identifying, grooming and promoting those capable of leadership – and identifying and weeding out non-performers and malingerers.
He also suggested continuously rewarding those who do a fair day’s work without necessarily promoting them to positions to which they do not aspire or for which they are not suited or qualified.
All this, Laurie said, must be done in a transparent manner.
