Bureaucracy and Continued Inconsistencies of the Interim Administration
It is safe to say the CSA in recent time has been primarily focused on attaining an amicable resolution to the ‘Essential Pensions and Payroll Changes’ proposals, but this does not mean that we have been asleep where it relates to other issues facing the civil service. Since the
suspension of the Constitution, the interim government has introduced various procedures meant to make a more transparent and efficient civil service. While the CSA Management Council welcomes and support all efforts to achieve those goals, some of the bureaucratic practices
deployed thus far are neither transparent nor efficient.
To support this conclusion, we look closely at the new procedures for receiving approval for Regional and International Travel. First, an Overseas Duty Travel (ODT) form is submitted to be signed and agreed on by a Head of Department (HOD) and a Permanent Secretary (P/S).
Additionally, an International Travel Request (ITR) form has to be submitted to the Ministry of Finance, outlining everything found in the ODT form in addition to stating if travel, accommodation, and/or subsistence will be sponsored. The ITR form also requires the approval of the HOD, P/S, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and/or the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). If Government funding is required, a Travel Subsistence Advance (TSA) form has to be submitted, which has to be approved by the HOD, P/S, P/S Finance, CFO, and CEO. Finally, once the TSA form has been approved, the payment can then be entered on the SmartStream System for approval by the HOD, P/S, and Representative from the Ministry of Finance for processing of
payment.
If this seems a roundabout way of doing things, it’s because it is. This process highlights a few things; firstly, the process alone seems constructed to discourage civil servants from even applying for support to attend meetings, workshops or any training for that matter due to the excessive levels of bureaucracy, or it seems that may be the desired result. Secondly, all the guidelines outlined are not applied to all civil servants equally and some have direct access to bypass much of the process itself. For example, a very senior civil servant was approved for a travel advance in excess of the $250set for accommodation for European Travel. The question is, if the official knew the cost of the accommodation beforehand could he/she not have found accommodation within the range outlined in the new subsistence guidelines? Also, will other civil servants be allowed to follow this pattern? We have a saying for that in the TCI…. “Curry Favour”!!!! To add insult to injury, the CEO/CFO has to approve travel even if it is fully sponsored. Frankly, if a HOD and P/S cannot jointly approve of travel that’s fully sponsored without the assistance of the CEO/CFO, then either they lack competencies to hold their post or the requirement for the approval of the CEO/CFO is to exercise unnecessary and time wasting control over the process. The latter conclusion seems the obvious one.
On to the next issue at hand- salaries and allowances- it appears as if the Interim Administration through the CEO’s office seems to be completely disregarding the recently updated salary scale when it suits them. This seems to be a continuation of a policy practiced by previous administrations whereby experience or qualifications has no direct bearing on remunerations received but more a reflection of whom is in or is likely to take up the a post. We have a TCI phrase for that: “Curry Favour!!!!” This blatant discrimination does not set an
example of good and fair governance! Below is a table of recently advertised post within the Civil Service inclusive of minimum qualifications, minimum experience, and basic salary scale.
After a review of the table one would find that the disparity in salary has no direct link to qualifications and experience. Highlighted by the Accountant General Post, which almost doubled in salary from its previous T49-T53 pay scale and the Director of Social Development which was previously T39-T43 and is now not in a pay scale grade. We question why these posts and why now?? Have persons
already been identified for those posts? Is one Masters Degree not comparable to another?? Is one’s 7 years of managerial experience not comparable to another? There is also a need to bring some clarity as to whom and how one qualifies for a Professional Allowance. Again, this seems to be a mechanism to pad the overall take home remuneration of a select few. On doing research, there seems to be no clear criteria to qualify for the allowance and yet it is still being issued and advertised with some job postings.
We invite the CEO, OPSM, and others to the table to iron out all of these inconsistencies and excessive bureaucracy once and for all to achieve a shared goal of producing a more transparent and efficient civil service.
