Advisers help ministers cut red tape

Robert Wynter, Contributor

Every so often, a newspaper prints a story to remind us of a situation that has existed for a very long time. The story is usually presented in such a manner that gets us agitated, shocked and upset. The result is that we flood the airwaves with our usual condemnation, vowing this must stop and should never happen again.

A few days later, although nothing is done about the situation, all is forgotten and we switch our collective attention to another sensational story. Nothing is usually heard about the situation until another piece is written and the cycle repeats itself.

One such story appeared in last Sunday's Gleaner, titled 'Big bucks for gov't advisers', where reporter Tyrone Reid indicated that eight of 16 ministries were paying out close to $100 million for 40 consultants and assistants (an average of $2.5 million each!). He then juxtaposed it with the recent austerity Budget and indicated that "even as Phillips was tacking on tax to certain basic food items to raise revenue, at least eight members of the Portia Simpson Miller-led Cabinet were busy adding millions annually to the Government's wage bill".

The tone of the Gleaner story suggested that the Cabinet ministers are unnecessarily padding their respective ministries to secure jobs for the boys and the girls, so to speak. While this has happened and probably is still happening, I believe it is the exception and not the rule. We recall during the last administration that then Agriculture Minister Chris Tufton had to defend the hiring and compensation of Aubyn Hill for the sugar-divestment process.

The radio waves were very busy with criticisms, forcing ministers Ronald Thwaites and Mark Golding to defend their actions. It got so ridiculous that one talk-show host, on hearing that the Jamaica Cultural Development Commission intends to hire a consultant, suggested that no more consultants be appointed until the public gets a full report of the list of all such employees with their respective duties and compensation. I am not sure if that would help anyone make an informed decision to continue or discontinue the practice of hiring consultants.

Value for Money

Let us assume that the eight ministries not checked by the Sunday Gleaner do, in fact, have consultants and assistants also to the tune of $100m. When combined with Cabinet members and other parliamentarians, the total non-civil servant, non-public sector agency salary package approximates $500m. This represents one-third of one per cent of the public-sector wage bill.

Were we really concerned about costs to taxpayers, surely we should spend more time scrutinising the public sector than we do the Cabinet and their advisers. While it is important to ensure that ALL public funds are well spent, I believe we should be barking up trees much more significant.

I am in full agreement with Dennis Chung, himself a government consultant, who was quick to caution critics to focus on value for money, rather than simply looking at the cost. The challenge is that we do not now measure the performance of a Cabinet minister, hence we have no idea whether we are getting value for money from their consultants and assistants.

NAVIGATING BUREAUCRACY

It is no secret that our government ministries are extremely bureaucratic, not necessarily because of the individuals in the system, but because of the system itself. It is a culture shock for a minister taking up office and discovering the extreme difficulty in navigating the bureaucracy. To get things done in a timely manner, ministers have a choice of tackling or bypassing the bureaucracy. In choosing the latter option, consultants and assistants provide the least path of resistance.

There is a popular saying in one particular ministry which goes something like this: "Ministers may come and ministers may go, but we run things here." It is the ministers and their respective party that have to face an election within a five-year period and who are actually held accountable for performance.

Permanent staff members have no such problem, as accountability is alien to the public-sector system. The authority to replace civil servants is vested in the Public Service Commission, a body which has absolutely no responsibility for the performance of the public sector; while ministers, who are held responsible for performance, have no authority to hire and fire.

This is antithetical to the tenets of accountability where responsibility and authority are aligned. Unfortunately, some ministers take advantage by providing contracts for political activists in an attempt to compensate them for party work. This was well articulated by Clyde Williams on Natonwide Radio last week.

POLICY VS OPERATIONS

R. Anne Shirley, an ex-government consultant, and Ronald Mason, Nationwide talk-show host, have publicly suggested that policy formulation is strictly the purview of government ministers, while policy implementation is the role of public-sector officials. In fact, Ms Shirley suggested that because of this distinction, there is the need for consultants to provide policy advice to ministers.

While it is true that the Cabinet and individual ministers take policy decisions, the core function of any central ministry is policy formulation. One of the challenges I believe is that rather than populate central ministries with policy specialists, subject-matter experts are hired with limited policy formulation capabilities, hence the need for additional sounding boards for ministers.

JOB DESCRIPTION FALLACY

Noted trade unionist Helene Davis-Whyte suggested there needs to be clear job descriptions for, consultants and assistants, presumably as proxies to ensure we get value for money. As a seasoned human resource practitioner, the goodly trade unionist ought to know better than that.

In both private and public sectors, the job description is usually provided to an employee when hired, filed away never to be used until a performance evaluation or a reclassification exercise. This is precisely why there is a global trend away from job descriptions and towards job accountabilities.

The former describes what an incumbent needs to do; the latter indicates what an incumbent needs to achieve to support the organisation in meeting its strategic objectives. In the case of consultants and assistants who have to do whatever it takes to support the minister in achieving his goals, job descriptions then become an exercise in futility.

The very recent announcement by Minister Horace Dalley, following the latest MOU Monitoring Committee, that unions are in full agreement with the Government's work on public-sector reform indicates that the way is now paved for the implementation of the Public Sector Transformation Unit's report. Among the recommendations are mergers, rationalisations and right-sizing, which would positively impact the size of the public sector.

A natural outcome would be the ease of hiring the right skills in ministries, departments and agencies, thereby reducing the need for ministers to hire consultants and assistants outside the normal process. If indeed this report is true, I publicly congratulate the trade union leaders and Minister Dalley for the far-reaching agreement. Having said that, I trust that the Government will now move with alacrity and continued dialogue to implement the public-sector reform agenda.

Robert Wynter is the managing director of Strategic Alignment Limited, which facilitates organisational transformation and leadership development. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and rob.wyn@hotmail.com.