Many persons, understandably, are of the view that cronyism, nepotism, payment for favours should not form the basis of appointments to statutory bodies. There is, however, always the suspicion that these are all considerations when ruling administrations make appointments to the boards of statutory bodies. Are these suspicions real or merely a reflection of the natural cynicism of voters? In many instances the political connections of appointees are glaringly obvious, and the appointments do not appear justified by the known credentials of the appointees.
Most questions arise where the appointments do not appear to be justified by the qualifications, experience, and background of the appointees. It is generally accepted that a political party in making appointments will first consider eligible appointees from among its supporters. It is when the appointees appear to be ineligible, based on all reasonable criteria, that questions raised are considered to be justified.
Despite the regular cries of cronyism, nepotism, and appointments for political favours, following appointments after each change in political administration, no real change has been made to ensure visible objectivity in appointments to government-related bodies. At least one minister under the former APM administration sought to invite applications from persons desirous of serving on boards. Applications were required to be submitted to the minister, which again saw questions being raised as to the objectivity of that process. Cynical mined persons observed that the Minister merely needed to quietly invite persons he/she wanted to appoint to the boards to apply. It would then be a simple matter of appointing them on the premise that they expressed their interest.
Whether a request for persons to express their interest in serving on a board is the ideal way to ensure the best possible appointees to boards is questionable. Sadly, many persons desire to serve on boards for the apparent prestige and remuneration, rather than a real interest in or commitment to the work of the entity they will be charged to govern. An invitation to persons possessing the requisite qualifications, experience and character required to serve effectively as a director of a particular body might be more successful in securing the right calibre of person. Is this likely to happen while the mechanism for board appointments to government-related bodies lies solely with the ruling political party? The only rational answer is no.
The Constitutional & Electoral Reform Committee under the leadership of Don Mitchell KC considered this issue. The solution proposed in its report was for an Appointments Commission to be established which would consist of three members. The members would be the Governor, the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition who would each appoint one member, and the quorum would be two members. The obvious intent of the proposal to establish an Appointments Commission was to secure objectivity in board appointments, rather than the political bias which appears to prevail.
The Premier recently announced the appointment of a new Constitutional Reform Committee. The issue of board appointments as well as other matters requiring reform are expected to attract the attention of the Committee. Without a concerted and sincere effort on the part of the ruling administration, constitutional reform will not be achieved. In 2019 when some constitutional reform was achieved the process was driven by Mrs. Cora Richardson-Hodge as Minister with responsibility for Constitutional Affairs. Mrs. Richardson-Hodge now serves as Premier and Minister with responsibility for Constitutional Affairs. There is reason to hope that significant constitutional reform will be achieved.
