The Public Service Commission (PSC) notes with concern, the article entitled “President’s Key Role in Good Governance”, which was published in the opinion section of the Guardian newspaper on Monday, 14th May 2018, and which portrayed an inaccurate representation of the role, functions and powers of the commission.
For clarity, the PSC’s powers are specified in and circumscribed by section 121 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Its express powers are to make appointments, promotions, transfers, discipline and remove public officers and, subject to consultation with the Prime Minister, to make regulations and policies for its operations. Its powers do not repose responsibility for the operations and management of ministries.
Section 85 of the Constitution vests in ministers the power to exercise general direction and control of departments (Ministries) and, subject to such direction, the departments are under the supervision of the Permanent Secretary.
In addition, the courts both in Trinidad and Tobago and the Privy Council of England and Wales have repeatedly and authoritatively held that the powers of the PSC are prescribed and limited by the Constitution and that the PSC is not, and should not arrogate unto itself the powers of, the employer of public officers. Its power to make appointments, promotion, transfers and discipline must be exercised within the terms and conditions set by the employer, which is the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) acting under the authority and direction of the Government.
The PSC is cognizant of the fact that the structure of the Human Resource Management (HRM) system in the public administration is multi-layered and that it is one among a few agencies that have clearly demarcated powers, functions and responsibilities. Other key actors in the public service HRM system are the executive and in particular the minister with responsibility for Public Administration, the CPO, permanent secretaries and heads of departments.
To state that “all power and authority for the operations of the Public Service are concentrated in the PSC but responsibility for implementation and accountability lies with the Permanent Secretaries” is misconceived and conveys a clear misrepresentation of the powers of the PSC.
The PSC further wishes to inform that limited delegation of the powers of the PSC to permanent secretaries, heads of departments and other senior officers commenced in 2006. It is intended that, once executive approval and resources are given for the implementation of the recently concluded institutional strengthening programme for the Service Commissions Department, the commission will focus primarily on the monitoring and oversight of staffing and discipline transactions delegated to permanent secretaries and heads of departments, together with the development and implementation of a policy framework to ensure efficiency, effectiveness, integrity and fairness.
In conclusion, the PSC also wishes to emphasise that it is interested in the reform and modernisation of an efficient and effective public service, to the extent that its authority permits.
It must be recognised that the core responsibility for the reform and modernization of the public service lies with other actors in the HRM system and that support of the PSC must be an active ingredient. To give the impression that the PSC is the core institution responsible for the reform of public administration is a commonly held misunderstanding, which the PSC is determined to correct.
Editor’s note: The letter the PSC is referring to was written by former Senate President Timothy Hamel-Smith
