In its meeting on 10th December, 2020, Executive Council (Ex Co) appears to have formed the view that process is important in the management of Government affairs. According to EX MIN 20/512, Executive Council approved draft legislation that would require the Statutory Bodies to fully comply with the Government’s procurement process. The Government’s procurement process is considered to be very robust and is intended to ensure fairness, transparency and accountability in the award of contracts.
The Government’s decision, in relation to the procurement process to be utilised by Statutory Bodies, can be examined in the context of the expressed intention by at least two ministers to populate Boards of Statutory Bodies by requiring persons to apply to serve on such Boards. Taken together, these two proposals suggested a desire, on the part of the APM Government, to create a competitive environment that would allow the justified and explainable selection of the best persons for any job on offer. A politician’s word is not often considered to be his bond, but many persons, having heard these sentiments, were hopeful that, in keeping with the APM’s mantra ‘Change can’t wait’, steps were being taken to make accountability and transparency more apparent, throughout the Governmental structure, in the selection of persons or entities who would benefit from the public purse.
The electorate places more stock in the actions of politicians and, sadly, the potential goodwill that was being generated was eroded by the singular act of the Minister of Tourism when he appointed a Director of Tourism without utilising any transparent process to identify the best candidate for that post. This appointment, which was referenced in last week’s editorial, continues to be commented on by many persons who question the propriety of the appointment process.
The failure to utilise a transparent process can only be viewed as deliberate when one considers the views previously expressed, individually and collectively, by the APM Government on such matters. The deliberate failure is obvious, since the Minister of Tourism did not have to look far for an example of good practice in recruitment. The Anguilla Public Service has in place a system, sanctioned by the Constitution and other legislation, that is intended to ensure openness, fairness and consultation in the recruitment of public officers.
What is truly disconcerting is that the appointment has been effected and sanctioned by the same Government that is requiring the Statutory Bodies to utilise the more robust Government procurement process, when awarding contracts for goods and services. Will there also be, at the first opportunity, an erosion of the very same procurement process if it suits a minister’s or the APM Government’s purpose? Hopefully, the procurement legislation and the officials tasked with managing the procurement process will be able to resist any attempts to erode that process.
It is well known that the Government of Anguilla is in dire financial straits, and the APM Administration has made it clear that the Statutory Bodies must take steps to streamline their expenditure, and to meet that expenditure without recourse to the Central Government. This seems to be in keeping with certain Ex Co decisions made in relation to staffing for the Anguilla Air and Sea Ports Authority (AASPA) and the Anguilla Community College (ACC). In its meeting on 10th December, 2020, as reflected in EX MIN 20/510, Executive Council required AASPA to reduce costs by deferring additional recruitment. Additionally, Ex Co on 17th December, 2020, agreed by EX MIN 20/524 to remove the statutory requirement for designated senior staff at the ACC. How then is it that the Minister of Tourism concluded that, at a time when cost cutting measures were being implemented, it was necessary to fill the post of Director of Tourism which had been vacant for some time? In the absence of a transparent process, justifying the need and mode of selection, questions will be raised.
The questions surrounding the apparent absence of an appropriate process, in the appointment of the Director of Tourism, have been exacerbated by comments surrounding her Anguillian status. My understanding is that the appointee is married to an Anguillian. However, just like birth in Anguilla does not by itself qualify an individual to be an Anguillian, so too marriage to an Anguillian does not automatically qualify a person as an Anguillian. According to the Constitutional amendments of 2019, to acquire Anguillian status by marriage a person must have been married to an Anguillian for at least five years – and must have been granted Anguillian status by the Anguillian Status Commission. Whether or not the Director is an Anguillian, in accordance with the Constitutional provisions, would be a moot point if it could be clearly established that an open and fair recruitment process had been used to identify the person best suited for the role of Director of Tourism.
While time is moving swiftly, and the APM Government is now entering the second half of its first year in office, there is still time for it to be the change it said it would be – and to effect change where change is needed. The people are watching and waiting – and are not only interested in the end result, but in the process by which that end is achieved.
