I always find it curious that with a change in government, often comes a change in boards of several statutory bodies. Over the past few weeks we would have heard of several changes in board membership: at the Anguilla Tourist Board, the Anguilla Water Corporation and the Anguilla Air and Seaports Authority — to name a few. No doubt, there are more changes pending for other boards. However, we would have heard our new Government ministers make comments in the media about the functioning of statutory bodies and the need for more accountability and self-sufficiency from those bodies. I would be the first to agree that the Government needs to ensure that the monies provided to statutory bodies are well managed, and can withstand the rigors of any cost/benefit analysis. Such bodies should have plans (approved by Government) outlining how the money provided will be spent, and they should be subjected to regular audits and stringent reporting requirements.
I must hasten to add that there are some statutory bodies which, in my view, will always be heavily reliant on Government funding. Two such bodies are the Anguilla Community College and the Health Authority. Subsidising these bodies is necessary to ensure that access to education and health services is affordable for the majority of the population. If the Government was to withdraw funding, these bodies would have to increase their fees in order to stay afloat. In the case of Community College, this would probably lead to its demise. However, in the case of the Health Authority, it would mean that many people would not have access to health care simply because they cannot afford it. Both results are undesirable.
Generally, however, I often wonder whether some of the very issues Governments complain about, with regard to the functioning of statutory bodies, are the result of Government’s own actions in changing boards when Governments change. There are several issues with this practice which impacts negatively on the organisations.
Firstly, it is an accepted fact that board appointments are often used to reward persons who are supporters of the government in office. As such, many board appointees are often mindful of political considerations and can find themselves under pressure to make decisions for political reasons — rather than in the best interest of the organisation they are appointed to serve.One can easily appreciate how this can work against the proper governance of the organisation if persons feel constrained to remain in the “good books” of the Minister who appointed them.
Secondly, many board members do not have the requisite knowledge, skills and experience to serve in positions of governance of organisations. This is often characterised by an inability of board members to contribute meaningfully to discussions on the main business of the organisation — as well as a lack of understanding of the difference between the role of the board in governance and the role of management in the operation of the organisation. We have several examples of how organisations have suffered at the hands of incompetent and rogue board members. Usually, the governance descends into chaos and the organisation becomes dysfunctional and makes little or no progress in fulfilling its purpose.
Thirdly, the changing of the boards often means the discontinuation of some of the initiatives of the previous board — and the loss of institutional knowledge in the governance arm of the organisation. This results in a culture where the organisation feels like it is always starting over. How can strides be made if an organisation is constantly starting over? If everyone is new? If initiatives in which significant investments of time and money have been made, are shelved? Not only does it have a debilitating effect on the morale of management and staff, but it is simply not good practice. There is need for continuity in governance. It reduces the knowledge gap, and ensures that decisions made are grounded by the prior experience of governing the organisation.
In my view, unless the practice of changing boards with every new administration, comes to an end, there will be little hope of statutory bodies functioning as they should. I am an advocate of maintaining consistency in the governance of these bodies — by seeking to appoint persons with the necessary competence to serve, regardless of political affiliation and, provided they are performing well, by extending their membership for as long as the law allows. In this way, we will avoid many of the pitfalls outlined above — and with training and guidance provided for board members, we can have statutory bodies that are able to meet the expectations Government had of them when they were established.
