Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698924857509.pdf (Trinidad and Tobago)
Tenth parliament [2010/2011 session] FFiirrsstt RReeppoorrtt Of the Joint select Committee appointed to inquire and report on municipal corporations and service commissions with the exception of the Judicial and Legal Service commission An Evaluation of the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Service Commissions with the exception of the judicial and legal service commission Together with the Minutes of Proceedings and Notes of Evidence Ordered to be printed by the Houses a b JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO AND REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND SERVICE COMMISSIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION First Report An evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the Service Commissions [with the exception of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission] Date Laid: H.O.
R. __________________ Senate ___________________ c d TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteenntt Page No.
LLiisstt ooff TTaabblleess ...................................................................................................................................iii GGlloossssaarryy ooff AAbbbbrreevviiaattiioonnss ............................................................................................................... iv OOvveerrvviieeww ........................................................................................................................................... 1 EExxeeccuuttiivvee SSuummmmaarryy .......................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 The Committee....................................................................................................................... 5 (a) Mandate .............................................................................................................................. 5 (b) Powers ................................................................................................................................ 5 (c) Membership ........................................................................................................................ 6 (d) Election of Chairman and Determination of Quorum ........................................................ 6 (e) Staffing and
6 (e) Staffing and Support........................................................................................................... 7 (f) Meetings ............................................................................................................................. 7 1.2 Minister‘s Response ............................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 The Service Commissions.................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 3:The Evidence ................................................................................................................ 12 3.1 The Teaching Service Commission (TSC) .......................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Inquiry Objectives ........................................................................................................ 13 3.1.2 Findings ........................................................................................................................ 14 3.1.3 Challenges .................................................................................................................... 16 3.1.4 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 17 3.2 The Police Service Commission
 .......................................................................................... 19 3.2.1 Inquiry Objectives ........................................................................................................ 20 3.2.2 Findings ........................................................................................................................ 20 3.2.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 24 3.3 The Public Service Commission .......................................................................................... 25 i 3.3.1 Inquiry Objectives ........................................................................................................ 26 3.3.2 Findings ........................................................................................................................ 26 3.3.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 28 3.4 Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission ........................................................................ 30 3.4.1 Inquiry Objectives ........................................................................................................ 32 3.4.2 Findings ........................................................................................................................ 32 3.4.3 Recommendations
 ........................................................................................................ 34 Chapter 4:Observations, Summary of Recommendations and Conclusions ................................. 35 4.1 Observations ..................................................................................................................... 35 4.2 Summary of Recommendations ....................................................................................... 36 4.3 General Recommendations .............................................................................................. 39 4.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 40 Appendix 1:Areas of Responsibility ............................................................................................... 41 Appendix 2:List of Reports Referred .............................................................................................. 41 Appendix 3:Minutes of Proceedings ............................................................................................... 41 Appendix 4:Verbatim Notes ........................................................................................................... 41 Appendix 5:Status of Vacancies within the Teaching Service for the period 2005 - 2011 ............ 41 ii LLiisstt ooff TTaabblleess Table 1.1: Schedule of meetings ………………………………………………………………8 Table 1.2: Members‘ Attendance at meetings
 …………………………………………………8 Page No.
iii GGlloossssaarryy ooff AAbbbbrreevviiaattiioonnss Abbreviation Meaning CEO CPO DPA GHRS HOD HRO ICT IHRIS IT MOE PMCD PPAB SASC TSC TTPS Chief Executive Officer Chief Personnel Officer Director of Personnel Administration Government Human Resource Services Head of Department Human Resource Officer Information and Communication Technology Integrated Human Resource Information System Information Technology Ministry of Education Public Management Consulting Division Police Promotion Advisory Board Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission Teaching Service Commission Trinidad and Tobago Police Service iv OOvveerrvviieeww To facilitate and ensure excellent service to the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, transparency in Government and good governance, Parliamentarians from both the Senate and the House of Representatives are committed to working in small groups co-operatively to consider and report on details of proposed legislation, Government Ministries and Departments and other matters, pertaining to Parliament.
This all-party composition of committees and their propensity to operate across party lines are important features.

The committees also comprise independent senators who do not represent any political party.

This approach generally manifests itself throughout the conduct of inquiries and the drawing up of conclusions.
The appointment of this Joint Select Committee is in keeping with Section 66A of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and the Standing Orders of both Houses of Parliament.

The principal purpose of parliamentary committees is to perform functions which the Houses themselves are not well fitted to perform.
One of the important functions of this Committee is scrutiny through inquiries into matters relative to the mandate, management and operations of Ministries/Bodies assigned to it by the House.

This is achieved by acquiring oral and written submissions from witnesses, inviting written submissions from the public, finding out the facts of the case or issue, examining witnesses, analyzing evidence, discussing matters in detail and formulating reasoned recommendations and conclusions.
It is expected that this Joint Select Committee will complement and inform the Parliament through these activities and advice acquired from expert advisers on relevant matters.

This mechanism is of utmost importance for ensuring efficient and effective transparent democratic governance, and is used in several jurisdictions.
Given below is a comprehensive account of the Joint Select Committee of Parliament appointed to inquire into and report on Municipal Corporations and Service Commissions with the exception of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, on an evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of Service Commissions.
1 2 EExxeeccuuttiivvee SSuummmmaarryy The First Report of the Joint Select Committee of Parliament appointed to inquire into and report on Municipal Corporations and Service Commissions with the exception of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission encompasses an evaluation into the following four (4) Service Commissions:  The Teaching Service Commission;  The Police Service Commission;  The Public Service Commission; and  The Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission.
Chapter 1 of the Report details the mandate and powers of the Committee in accordance with section 66A of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and the mode of operations.

Also addressed in this chapter is the period - October 2010 to December 2011 - during which your Committee carried out its evaluation of the Service Commissions.

For this period eight (8) meetings were convened, five (5) of which were held in public and three (3) in camera.
Chapter 2 of the Report gives an overview of the Service Commissions.

Chapter 3 of the Report is divided into four (4) paragraphs - 3.1 to 3.4 - with subparagraphs.

Each paragraph represents a Service Commission and gives a synopsis of the Commission, the objectives, the findings and recommendations of the Committee and lists the officials from each agency who appeared before the Committee to give oral evidence.

Chapter 4 of the Report outlines the observations of the Committee.
It delineates a summary of recommendations proposed by the Committee and gives the conclusion of the evaluation.
3 4 Chapter 1 1.1 The Committee (a) Mandate In accordance with stipulations at section 66(A) of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, on September 17, 2010 the House of Representatives and on October 12, 2010 the Senate, agreed to a motion on the subject of the appointment of a Joint Select Committee to inquire into and report to Parliament on Municipal Corporations and Service Commissions with the exception of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission on all matters relating to:    their administration the manner of exercise of their powers their methods of functioning; and  any criteria adopted by them in the exercise of their powers and functions.
(b) Powers Standing Orders 71B of the Senate and 79B of the House of Representatives outline that the Committee is empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operations of the Ministry or Body assigned to it by the House.
In consequence the Committee has the powers inter alia: a. to review and report on all matters relating to:   the statute law relating to the Ministry/body assigned to it; the program and policy objectives of the Ministry/Body and its effectiveness in the implementation of same;  other matters relating to the management, organization of the Ministry/body; In addition, this Joint Select Committee also has power to:  send for persons, papers and records;  adjourn from place to place; 5  report from time to time;  appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not otherwise readily available, or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee; and  meet concurrently with any other Committee for the purpose of deliberating, taking evidence or considering draft reports.
A list of the entities which fall under the purview of the Committee is attached as Appendix 1.

(c) Membership The following Members were appointed to serve on the Committee:  Mr. Subhas Ramkhelawan  Mr. Elton Prescott, SC  Brig.
John Sandy  *Mrs. Therese Baptiste-Cornelis1  Mr. David Abdulah  Ms. Shamfa Cudjoe  Mrs. Vernella Alleyne-Toppin, MP  Mr. Chandresh Sharma, MP  Mr. Rodger Samuel, MP  Mr. Prakash Ramadhar, MP  Ms. Marlene McDonald, MP  Mrs. Joanne Thomas, MP (d) Election of Chairman and Determination of Quorum At its first meeting held on October 22, 2010 and chaired by the Honourable Timothy Hamel- Smith, President of the Senate, the Committee elected Mr. Subhas Ramkhelawan and Mr. Elton Prescott, Independent Senators, as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively.
1 *Mrs. Therese Baptiste-Cornelis‘ Ministerial and Senatorial appointments were revoked with effect from June 27, 2011 6 At that meeting and in accordance with Standing Orders 71(2) of the Senate and 79(2) of the House of Representatives, there also was agreement that the quorum would constitute five (5) Members: one government member, one opposition member, and the Chairman or Vice Chairman provided that each House is represented.
It was further agreed that the Committee will hold meetings on the fourth (4th) Friday of every month.

(e) Staffing and Support Secretarial assistance was provided by the following officers: Mrs. Jacqueline Phillip-Stoute Ms. Candice Skerrette Ms. Indira Binda - - - Secretary Assistant Secretary Graduate Research Assistant (f) Meetings To properly undertake the evaluation of the Service Commissions, your Committee carried out the task over the period October 2010 to December 2011.
Your Committee met on the fourth Friday of every month at the Office of the Parliament in the Red House.

Total number of meetings held Of which: Number of meetings at which oral evidence was taken Number of times oral evidence was taken partly or wholly in private Number of wholly private meetings 8 5 0 3 The Schedule of meetings is at Table 1.1.

The Minutes and Verbatim Notes of the Committee‘s proceedings are attached as Appendices 3 and 4 respectively.
7 TABLE 1.1 Schedule of meetings of the Joint Select Committee DATE MEETING TYPE ENTITY EXAMINED Friday October 22, 2010 Wednesday December 08, 2010 Friday February 04, 2011 Regular Regular Regular Friday February 25, 2011 Public Hearing Teaching Service Commission Friday March 25, 2011 Public Hearing Police Service Commission Friday April 29, 2011 Friday May 27, 2011 Public Hearing Public Services Commission Public Hearing Statutory Authorities Service Commission Tuesday June 14, 2011 Public Hearing Police Service Commission NOTE: Wholly private meetings Public Hearings (Meetings at which oral evidence was taken) (g) Members’ attendance at meetings Detailed at Table 1.2 is a record of Members‘ Attendance at meetings.
TABLE 1.2: Members’ Attendance at meetings Member Mr. Subhas Ramkhelawan Mr. Elton Prescott S.C. Brig.

John Sandy Mrs. Therese Baptiste-Cornelis Chandresh Sharma Mr. David Abdulah Ms. Shamfa Cudjoe Mr. Prakash Ramadhar Mrs. Joanne Thomas Mrs. Vernella Alleyne-Toppin Mr. Rodger Samuel Ms. Marlene McDonald 1st Meeting 22.10.10 2nd Meeting 08.12.
10 3rd Meeting 04.02.11 4th Meeting 25.02.11 5th Meeting 25.03.11 6th Meeting 29.04.11 7th Meeting 27.05.11 √ √ √ √ √ √ abs √ abs abs √ √ √ √ √ ex abs √ ex abs √ ex √ ex √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Ex √ √ √ Ex √ √ ex ex √ √ abs ex √ abs √ ex √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ abs √ √ ex √ √ √ √ ex √ abs ex abs √ √ ex √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ abs 8th Meeting 14.06.11 √ √ √ √ abs √ √ ex √ √ √ ex 8 Members Mr. Subhas Ramkhelawan (Chairman) Mr. Elton Prescott, S.C. (Vice Chairman) Brigadier John Sandy, Mrs. Therese Baptiste-Cornelis Mr. Chandresh Sharma Mr. David Abdulah Ms. Shamfa Cudjoe Mr. Prakash Ramadhar Mrs. Joanne Thomas Mrs. Vernella Alleyne-Toppin Mr. Rodger Samuel Ms. Marlene Mc Donald Overall Attendance: - - - - - - - - - - - - Meetings attended 8 out of 8 8 out of 8 5 out of 8 6 out of 8 6 out of 8 8 out of 8 5 out of 8 3 out of 8 7 out of 8 4 out of 8 7 out of 8 1 out of 8 70.8% (h) The Report In accordance with Standing Orders 75(4)(b) of the Senate and 82(4)(b) of the House of Representatives, the Committee at a meeting held on April 27, 2012, considered and adopted this First Report.
1.2 Minister’s Response This Report is subject to Standing Orders 71(B)(13) of the Senate and 79(B) (13) of the House of Representatives which state: “(13) The Minister responsible for the Ministry/Body under review shall, not later than sixty days after a report from a Joint Select Committee, relating to the Ministry/Body, has been laid upon the Table, present a paper to the House responding to any recommendations/comments contained in the report which are addressed to it.
……” The sixty-day period commences on the date of tabling.
9 Chapter 2 2.1 The Service Commissions The Teaching, Public and Police Service Commissions were established under the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and are empowered under section 129 as follows: ―129(1) Subject to subsection (3), a Service Commission may, with the consent of the Prime Minister, by regulation or otherwise regulate its own procedure, including the procedure for consultation with persons with whom it is required by this Constitution to consult, and confer powers and impose duties on any public officer or, in the case of the holder of an office referred to in section 111(2), a Judge or on any authority of the Government, for the purpose of the discharge of its functions.‖ The members of Service Commissions are appointed by the President, after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
The Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission was created by Act No.

16 of 1966 and came into effect on January 1st 1967.

The mandate of the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission is outlined in Section 5 of the Statutory Authorities Act, Chap.

24:01.

Thirteen (13) Statutory Authorities fall under the purview of this Commission.
General Information Given the constitutional requirements outlined in Section 66B regarding the submission of reports by the Service Commissions, the Committee expected that reports up to the year 2009/2010 would have been submitted to Parliament for consideration by this time (2011).

This was not consistently the case.


10 Therefore, in order to facilitate its work, the Committee agreed to and did correspond with the Commissions concerning the status of submission of annual reports for tabling in Parliament.

As a result of responses received, the Committee subsequently interviewed Officials of the Teaching Service Commission, Police Service Commission, Public Service Commission and the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission.
A list of the reports which were referred to the Committee is at Appendix 2.

In all instances the Committee agreed to and undertook an evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of each Service Commission.

The following Chapters give a synopsis of the findings of your Committee along with suggested recommendations for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the Commissions.

11 Chapter 3 The Evidence This Chapter is divided into four (4) paragraphs - 3.1 to 3.4 - with subparagraphs.
Each paragraph represents a Service Commission and gives a synopsis of the Commission, the objectives, the findings and recommendations of the Committee and lists the officials from each agency who appeared before the Committee to give oral evidence.
3.1 The Teaching Service Commission (TSC) The Teaching Service Commission was established under section 124 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and is charged with the responsibility under section 125 as follows: ―subject to the provisions of this Constitution, power to appoint persons to hold or act in public offices in the Teaching Service established under the Education Act, including power to make appointments on promotion and transfer and to confirm appointments, and to remove and exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices and to enforce standards of conduct on such officers.‖ The Director of Personnel Administration (DPA) and the Teaching Service Secretariat provide the administrative and advisory service (in particular legal and regulatory services) which is intended to enable the TSC to discharge its constitutional mandate.
The constitutional mandate of the TSC, that is, appointing, promoting, transferring, confirming and exercising disciplinary control of officers within the Teaching Service are core functions within the Human Resource Management (HRM) field.

In order to inform stakeholders of its activities the Commission produces a quarterly newsletter entitled ―TSC Speaks‖.
12 3.1.1 Inquiry Objectives Based on the above and having considered the 2009 Annual Report of the Commission, the Committee agreed that the objective of its inquiry would be to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the Teaching Service Commission.
Preceding this evaluation printed responses relating to the under-mentioned areas were requested from the Commission:  Review of the administrative management from 2008 to 2010;  Status Report on its objectives and goals listed in its 2009 Report;  Medium-Term Strategic Plan up to 2015;  Planned Areas of Implementation up to 2015; and  Legislative and Regulatory adjustments that can enhance the effectiveness of the Commission.
After thorough scrutiny of the submissions made by the Commission, your Committee agreed that the following were the key areas of concern for which clarification was required: -  Fulfilling the Mandate of Teaching Service Commission  Standards of Conduct  Teacher performance  Vacancies within the Teaching Service  Teacher Irregular Attendance  Disciplinary procedures for teachers  Teacher Abandonment Your Committee thus examined the following representatives of the Teaching Service Commission at public hearing on Friday February 25, 2011: Ms. Hyacinth Guy Dr. Anna Mahase Mr. Zaffar Ali Mr. Oliver Flax Prof. Ramesh Deosaran Ms. Yvette Phillip Chairman Member Member Member Member Member 13 Consequent on the oral evidence taken at the hearing, additional information was sought by the Committee from the Commission.
3.1.2 Findings During its deliberations the Committee found that: Fulfilling the Mandate of the Teaching Service Commission The TSC recognized that it was necessary to increase the rate at which interviews for filling of vacant positions were conducted.

A proposal was made to establish a Selection Centre dedicated for this purpose.
By a Cabinet decision of 2006, approval was granted for the establishment of a Temporary Selection Centre to address the huge backlog of vacancies with respect to the positions of Principal, Vice Principal, Dean, Head and Senior Teacher.

In 2010 approval also was granted by Cabinet for a permanent Selection Centre.

However, the Centre needs dedicated administrative resources, a full complement of interviewers and a fully functioning maintenance and support system.
The TSC has been successful in significantly reducing the large number of vacant positions within the Teaching Service.

However the backlog is still at a high level.

Standards of Conduct The Commission is aware of the existence of teacher indiscipline because the Commission‘s attention is sought only when there are allegations of misconduct.

While allegations of misconduct are reported to the Ministry of Education, there are usually delays by the Ministry in taking the next step.
In order to enforce standards of conduct, the Commission has been working in conjunction with the Ministry of Education (MOE) to put systems in place.

Investigating officers were assigned by the Ministry of Education to investigate allegations of misconduct and generate a report.

Delays in the tabling of these reports have affected timely disciplinary and corrective action.

This creates the challenge of enforcing existing standards of discipline at a faster rate.
The structure requires enhancing and more resources are required by the Industrial Relations Unit at the Ministry in order to create sturdier lines of communication among supervisors of school districts.

14 There are plans to draft regulations as to how investigations should be conducted.

Specific timeframes for completion should be set and adhered to.

Teacher Performance Performance appraisal reports are seen by the TSC only when filling vacancies.
These reports are appended to the application of the teacher, together with the staff report and a special report for the consideration of the TSC.

In 2007 any case of teacher abuse and violence affecting the safety of a child was required to be reported immediately to the TSC.

In 2009, the policy was revised to include cases that affect the performance of the school.

Vacancies In 2005 there were 2,132 vacancies.


In 2007 appointments were made to outstanding positions of deans, heads and senior teaching positions in schools.

By 2008 most of the vacancies with respect to these positions were filled.

Appointments were being made to vacant positions which arose in 2010.

Interviews for vacant positions which arose in 2011 were in the preparatory stage.
For the period 2005 to 2010, there has been significant reduction in the number of vacancies with respect to the position of Principal.

Vacancies with respect to the position of principal reduced from 479 in 2005 to 28 in 2010, and Vice Principal from 251 in 2005 to 9 in 2010.

There was no significant reduction in vacancies with respect to the positions of Deans, Head of departments and senior teachers.

As at December 2010 there were 541 new vacancies.


The TSC is only authorized to fill positions established by the government.

It deals with the filling of permanent and temporary positions in Secondary Schools and only permanent positions in Primary Schools.

The Ministry of Education determines the supply of teachers.

Permanent appointments of teachers to Primary Schools can only be made by the Teaching Service Commission, on the advice of the relevant authority.
Appendix 5 summarizes the status of vacancies within the Teaching Service for 2005-2011.

Teacher Irregular Attendance The process of reporting instances of irregularity and punctuality of teachers begins with the Principal, then to the School Supervisor and finally to the Ministry of Education.

This process takes place on a regular basis.


The Teaching Service Commission has access to this information 15 Irregular attendance and punctuality of teachers are at high levels and thus adversely affect the performance of the school.

Human Resources The disestablishment of the position of Director of School Supervisors within the Ministry of Education has resulted in a gap in the consolidation of policies of all school districts and its reporting role of all School Supervisors.
As at February 25, 2011 a replacement position has not been created to manage these responsibilities.

Disciplinary Matters The Commission recognized that resolution to matters of discipline took over a year because of the weaknesses which existed in the disciplinary system.

These weaknesses stems from the interpretation and application of the Regulations.

The Teaching Service Commission has adopted Regulation 85 of the Public Service Regulations.
When an allegation is made, a thorough investigation is carried out by the Ministry of Education to determine whether there is any basis for laying a charge against the officer.

The TSC is currently in the process of drafting proposals to restructure human resource synergies to implement immediate discipline action from the MOE to TSC.

At the end of 2009 there were 83 disciplinary cases: 39 cases of alleged misconduct, 19 arising from court charges and 25 on abandonment.
The Commission continues to be faced with the challenge of delays in the submission of reports by Investigating Officers, and the dismissal of cases due to lack of evidence.

3.1.3 Challenges (a) At present, there is no facility in place for transporting files between the Secretariat and the Centre.

The Teaching Service Commission has no dedicated building for maintenance service.

(b) The Selection Centre is not appropriately staffed nor is it adequately resourced.
(c) There are delays and inadequate follow up action by the Discipline and Legal Sections on matters referred to them by the Commission for consideration.
16 3.1.4 Recommendations The ensuing recommendations were suggested by the Committee: (i) (ii) Review of Public Service Regulations 1966; Delegation of particular functions to the MOE with a measure of accountability; (iii) Increasing the number of full time members of the Teaching Service Commission; (iv) Adequate staffing and resourcing of the Selection Centre; (v) (vi) Review of the process of recruitment, selection, appointment and placement of teachers;  the creation of a system for the early identification and placement of teachers into positions which become vacant;  Consideration of zoning teachers during placement in secondary schools; The MOE should consider a replacement for the disestablished position of Director of School Supervision.
(vii) Review of how disciplinary matters are dealt with in order to increase efficiency and effectiveness.

The following should be considered:  Delegation to the Principal (in some instances) the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a teacher and in specified cases to take appropriate disciplinary action and report to the TSC.

Principals should consequently be trained in basic industrial relations and matters of discipline.
 The TSC and by extension the MOE should act on disciplinary matters expeditiously.

The TSC should consider:  Establish investigatory tribunals to expediently determine and make trained for matters before recommendations Investigating Officers should submit reports within 30-45 days.

Improve the timeframe for forwarding of child abuse reports by the MOE.

them.
them.

Highly   Enforcement of a Disciplinary Code of Conduct for Teachers, especially in light of reports of sexual misconduct between teacher and student.

 Establishment of a system for Alternative Dispute Resolution to deal with occurrences of misconduct by Principals and Vice Principals.

 Creation of a database with regards to disciplinary matters to track delinquent and repeat offenders.
(viii) Establishment of a Unit at the Ministry of Education to deal solely with school violence and schools gangs.
This Unit should collaborate with the TTPS to provide the necessary support, counseling and guidance to students; (ix) Consideration of implementing a Code of Conduct for secondary school students to curb the increase of school violence and gang violence; 17 (x) Creation of a database for school violence and gang related matters only to track delinquent and repeat offenders who will be dealt with by both the Ministry of Education and the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service.
18 3.2 The Police Service Commission The Police Service Commission was established under section 122 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and is empowered to: ―appoint persons to hold or act in an office in the Police Service established under the Police Service Act, including appointments on promotion and transfer and the confirmation of appointments, and to remove and exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices and to enforce standards of conduct on such officers.‖ The Committee considered the 2009/2010 Annual Report of the Commission and agreed to undertake an evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the Commission.
Based on its consideration of the above-mentioned Report and prior to the evaluation, printed responses relating to the under-mentioned areas were requested from the Commission:  Review of the administrative management from 2008 to 2010;  Status Report on its objectives and goals listed in its 2009 Report;  Medium-Term Strategic Plan up to 2015;  Planned Areas of Implementation up to 2015; and  Legislative and Regulatory adjustments that can enhance the effectiveness of the Commission.
Following receipt of the requested information, the Committee invited the Chairman of the Police Service Commission to attend a meeting to clarify areas of concern.
On Friday March 25, 2011 the following officials appeared before the Committee: Mr. Nizam Mohammed Mr. Addison Khan Mr. Kenneth Parker Mrs. Jacqueline Cheesman Mr. Martin George Mrs. Gloria Edwards-Joseph Ms. Natasha Seecharan Ms. Allison Douglas Chairman Member Member Member Member Director of Personnel Administration, Service Commissions Department Legal Adviser, Service Commissions Department Senior State Counsel, Service Commissions Department 19 Ms. Anoushka Ramsaran Dr. Kerry Sumesar-Rai Mr. Alfred Gray Mr. Anthony Samuel Mrs. Satie Maniram Mrs. Anne-Marie Andrews Senior State Counsel, Service Commissions Department Director Monitoring, Evaluation and Education Assistant Director, Research and Evaluation Assistant Director, Public Education Assistant Director, Audit Senior Human Resource Adviser (Secretary) 3.2.1 Inquiry Objectives The Committee focused on the following issues:  Review of the administrative management from 2008 to 2010;  Status Report on its objectives and goals listed in its 2009 Report;  Medium-Term Strategic Plan up to 2015;  Planned Areas of Implementation up to 2015; and  Legislative and Regulatory adjustments that can enhance the effectiveness of the Commission.
The Committee was apprised of the under-mentioned issues facing the Commission: (i) The suitability of accommodation of the Commission; (ii) Disciplinary Matters; (iii) Filling of PSC Secretariat vacancies; (iv) Legislative and Regulatory framework; (v) Medium term Strategic Plan; (vi) Use of Power of the Police Service Commission; and (vii) Ethnic Balance of Police Service 3.2.2 Findings During its discussion the Committee was advised that: The suitability of accommodation of the Commission The existing amenities of the Commission are unsuitable and inadequate.
It is for this reason that the PSC has, in the past, held meetings in the facilities of another Service Commission.

The matter has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Public Administration.

20 Disciplinary Matters There are disciplinary tribunals to deal with matters of discipline.

Subsequent to investigations by the Tribunal, it findings is recorded and forwarded to the Commission.

The Commission considers matters within seven (7) days.
The Police Commissioner, under whose purview disciplinary action falls, sets up a Disciplinary Tribunal which comprises of police officers who enquire into charges of discipline filed against police officers.

Upon the completion of its work, the Tribunal presents a report to the Commissioner.

The Commissioner decides whether disciplinary action should be taken against the police officer.
Following the decision of the Commissioner of Police, the police officer has a right to appeal to the Police Service Commission.

The Commission plays a monitoring role with respect to disciplinary matters.

Prior to 2006, a dual system existed where matters were delegated to the Commissioner of Police who is responsible for disciplining officers.

From 2006, full control of such matter was delegated to the Commissioner.

Residual matters are still dealt with by the Commission.
Filling of PSC Secretariat vacancies The administrative staff complement authorized by Cabinet is forty-two (42) contract officers.

For the years 2009 to 2010 the Secretariat had no more than 50% of the required staff.

Contract positions were advertised.

A consultant was engaged to carry out the selection process.

Subsequently, persons were identified and terms and conditions of employment were set by the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO).
Responses to advertisements with respect to other vacancies within the Police Service have been low due to uncompetitive compensation packages.

The PSC utilized the expertise of the Legal Advisor attached to the Service Commissions Department because the position was vacant.

There have been instances when the Legal Advisors were unavailable and the Commission‘s work postponed or aborted accordingly.

Legislative and Regulatory A consultant has been retained to draft regulations for the Commission.
This is a work in process.

21 Medium term Strategic Plan The Medium Term Strategic Plan has not been completed.

The assistance of the Commissioner of Police is required to facilitate its completion.

The Commission was hampered by staffing issues regarding administrative support and the filling of vacancies in the Secretariat.
Use of Power of the Police Service Commission The PSC is responsible to use its powers and authority in an unbiased and focused manner to ensure that things are done equitably and that all police officers within the service feel comfortable.
Ethnic Balance of Police Service Three (3) members of the Police Service Commission disassociated themselves from the position taken by the then PSC Chairman with respect to concerns expressed on the issue of the ethnic composition of the Police Promotion Advisory Board.
It was advised that the Police Service Commission in discharging its responsibilities, when and if discriminatory issues are reported, should determine whether or not, on the basis of the facts, discrimination has taken place, and if discrimination occurred, to take the necessary corrective action.

It was suggested that the Commission should ensure that those responsible for matters of promotion have clear guidelines which will guarantee the promotion of persons on the basis of performance and meritocracy.
It was further emphasized that it is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the system of promotions is fair and equitable and does not result in discrimination, and if discrimination occurs, that persons who feel aggrieved can appeal the matter and that their concerns will be determined fairly by the Commission.

The appointment of Mr. Nizam Mohammed as Chairman of the PSC was subsequently revoked.

He was replaced by Professor Ramesh Deosaran as Chairman and member of the PSC.
The Committee took a decision to hold another meeting with this entity under the leadership of the new Chairman to discuss issues requested as a consequence of the first meeting.

These issues, it was agreed, required elucidation.


The meeting was held on June 14th, 2011 and the following officials were available: Professor Ramesh Deosaran Ms. Jacqueline Cheesman Mr. Kenneth Parker - - - Chairman Member Member 22 Mr. Addison Khan Mrs. Gloria Edwards-Joseph Dr. Kerry Sumersar-Rai Mr. Alfred Gray Ms. Satie Maniram Mr. Anthony Samuel Ms. Ann Marie Andrews Ms. Anoushka Ramsaran Ms. Kavita Jodhan - - - - - - - - - Member Director of Personnel Administration Dir.
Monitoring, Evaluation & Education Ass.

Dir.

Research & Evaluation Ass.

Dir.

Audit Ass.

Dir.

Public Education Sen. Human Resource Adviser (Ag.)

Legal Adviser Legal Adviser Upon further evaluation of this entity the Committee found that: Appeals Tribunals There is an Appeals Tribunal which is comprised of three members.

This tribunal is appointed to hear and determine appeals that have been filed against decisions of the Police Commissioner.
Appeals can be against discipline and against complaints of promotion.

There was an increase in complaints from the Police Social and Welfare Association and individual police officers.

Grievances with respect to discipline have also increased.

Once the tribunal set up by the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) hears and determines the appeal, then the police officer may come directly to the Appeals Tribunal of the Police Service Commission and file an appeal.
An appeal must be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date on which the decision of the Tribunal was received.

In the case of promotional appeals, an officer has the right to request that the Commissioner of Police review same.

Subsequent to the review, if the Officer is still dissatisfied, then he may file an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal of the Police Service Commission.

In 2010, five (5) appeals were filed; from 2010 to present, that is, June 14, 2011 eight (8) more appeals had been filed.
Legislative and Regulatory The Commission does not have its own regulations.

Performance of Commissioner of Police (CoP) and Deputy CoP The CoP is required, at six (6) month intervals, to provide periodic reports for the attention of the PSC.

The Commission is also required to produce an annual report on the performance of the Commissioner of Police.

The appraisal of the Commissioner of Police is not purely subjective.
It is based on objective, empirical evidence that is collected from the Police Service itself, as well as the opinions and views of stakeholders.
23 3.2.3 Recommendations The Committee, after careful consideration of the evidence, proposes the following measures for the improvement of the operations of the Police Service Commission: (i) (ii) Consideration should be given to at least three positions (inclusive of the Chairman) of the PSC being made full-time positions; A review of the PSC Secretariat should be undertaken with a view to maximizing its efficiency and effectiveness; Creation of permanent rather than contract Secretariat positions should also be considered in order to attract desirable candidates; (iii) Timely completion of disciplinary matters/actions by the Commissioner of Police; (iv) Improved interface with the public; the creation of a full-time position of Communications Specialist within the PSC; creation of a website.
(v) Reinstatement of the Public Service Appeal Board.

(vi) Review of the regulations and guidelines governing the Commission.

(vii) Provision of suitable accommodation to facilitate the work of the Commission.

(viii) Expansion of the Appeals tribunal in terms of membership, so that more matters can be dealt with in an expeditious manner.
24 3.3 The Public Service Commission Section 120 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago stipulates the creation of a Public Service Commission for Trinidad and Tobago.

It also states that this Commission shall consist of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and not less than two, nor more than four other members, who shall be appointed by the President, after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
The Public Service Commission like other Service Commissions is empowered as follows: ―subject to the provisions of this Constitution, power to appoint persons to hold or act in offices to which the Public Service officers applies, including power to make appointments on promotions and transfer and to confirm appointments, and to remove and exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices and to enforce standards of conduct on such officers...‖ As with the other Service Commissions evaluated prior to the Public Service Commission, the Committee requested printed information regarding the following areas:  Review of the administrative management from 2008 to 2010;  Status Report on its objectives and goals listed in its 2009 Report;  Medium-Term Strategic Plan up to 2015;  Planned Areas of Implementation up to 2015; and  Legislative and Regulatory adjustments that can enhance the effectiveness of the Commission.
Subsequent to thorough consideration of the Annual Reports of the Public Service Commission for the years 2008 and 2009, the Committee invited the Chairman of the Commission to attend a meeting to clarify areas of concern highlighted by Members of the Committee.
On April 29, 2011 the under-named Officials appeared before your Committee: Ambassador Christopher Thomas Mrs. Zaida Rajnauth Mr. Neil Rolingson Ms. Jeanne Roseman Professor Kenneth Ramchand Chairman Deputy Chair Member Member Member 25 Mrs. Gloria Edwards-Joseph Ms. Natasha Seecharan Ms. Allison Douglas Ms. Anoushka Ramsaran Ms. Kavita Jodhan Ms. Suzette Lynch 3.3.1 Inquiry Objectives Dir.
of Personnel Administration, Service Commissions Department Legal Adviser, Service Commissions Department Senior State Counsel, Service Commissions Department Senior State Counsel, Service Commissions Department State Counsel II Senior HM Advisor The Committee sought responses from the Officials of the Public Service Commission on the following issues:  Succession Planning;  Promotion;  Filling of vacancies;  Recruitment and Selection;  Permanent Secretaries;  Disciplinary Process;  Legislative and Regulatory; and  Tobago.
3.3.2 Findings After examination of the Officials of the Public Service Commission, the Committee took special note of the following: Promotions The non-delivery of performance appraisals has resulted in delays in the promotion process.

In order to facilitate the reduction of the backlog of promotions, the Public Service Commission established an amnesty by providing a different form for the submission of performance appraisal reports by Permanent Secretaries.
It was found that where movements have taken place from one Ministry to the other, Permanent Secretaries were not in a position to determine performance appraisal of persons they had left or new persons they met.

It is essential that there be a timely and efficient Performance Appraisal system and a framework for accountability for senior and middle management.
The entrenchment of an Assessment Center Methodology and advanced scientific methods are required for the appointment and promotion of senior junior officers in the Public Service.

26 Succession Planning The PSC recognized that a complete reorganization of the administrative machinery of the Service Commissions Department along thematic/functional lines is necessary.

The Commission assists with the process of succession planning.
However there must be collaboration with other key agencies towards succession planning for senior management.

Constraints of filling vacancies The performance of the Public Service Commission should be determined on its structure and how the organization carries out its responsibilities and functions.

Since applicants lack the required training and qualifications, the Commission has been unable to fill vacancies.
Recruitment and Selection Competency-based interviews were introduced for selection of candidates to fill offices in the Public Service.

In accordance with the criteria set down in Regulation 172 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, the interview form has been redesigned.

Qualifications and training are the two issues responsible for the non-filling of vacancies within the Ministry of Health.

The ratio of under-qualified persons sent by the Ministry to fill vacancies is 7:3.
The Commission‘s decision is compromised in the interest of the country.

This results in individuals in the medical profession working in areas where the requirements of the CPO are not fully supported by the qualifications.

A number of vacant positions cannot be filled because of a freeze by the Ministry of Finance, a lack of funds and unattractive compensation packages.

Vacancies are therefore filled by contract officers.
Ten (10) to twelve (12) per cent of the jobs under contract are as a result of frozen positions within the service.

In April 2009, a new recruitment policy was formulated and implemented for the manipulative class of the public service.

Permanent Secretaries One of the strategic goals of the Public Service Commission Department is the delegation of the recruitment and selection process to Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Departments for Ministry/Department specific positions.
Permanent Secretaries are accountable to no one.

Thus, there is no appraisal report for this category of public employees.

Disciplinary Process The disciplinary process was streamlined to allow for speedier completion of disciplinary 27 hearings/matters taken against public officers and implementation of solutions.

An Investigations Unit was established to investigate all disciplinary matters referred to the Commission.

One-Man Tribunals have been set up in Ministries and Departments.
There was an increase in the number of Tribunals to relieve the burden of allocation of matters.

Tobago In October 2009 the Public Service Commission, through the Service Commission Department, Tobago Office established a presence in Tobago.

The Office was created to facilitate faster and more effective service to officers stationed in Tobago.

This office serves as a drop-off location for applications.
The office is used by all Commissions in Tobago, including the Public Service Commission, the Teaching Service Commission and the Police Service Commission.

The Director of Personnel Administration visits the Tobago Office twice per month.

3.3.3 Recommendations The Committee proposes the following recommendations with a view to enhance the operations of the Public Service Commission: (i) (ii) Development of senior level accountability and a system by which Permanent Secretaries can be assessed.
The performance appraisal of Permanent Secretaries should fall under the Public Service Commission.

A review of the structure of the Public Service Commission should be undertaken with a notion of introducing new management structures.

(iii) Review of the continued fragmentation of the human resource function with a view to bring more cohesion to the function and thus increase efficiency and effectiveness.

(iv) Consider the expansion of the management capacity of Permanent Secretaries.
(v) Delegation of the functions of recruitment and selection to line Ministries and Departments in relation to offices specific to them.

(vi) Review of the existing disciplinary procedure to ensure equity and fairness when dealing with disciplinary infractions.

(vii) Review of the Public Service Regulations to ensure relevance and compatibility 28 with strategic objectives.

(viii) Development and maintenance of an electronic database for handling requests for transfers of public officers.
(ix) Development of a mechanism to ensure effective problem solving and implementation of solutions in the Public Service.

Engage in the modernization of qualification requirements and job descriptions.

(x) (xi) Approval of a permanent structure for Tobago.

(xii) A review of the Public Service Commission‘s strategic plan.
29 3.4 Statutory Authorities’ Service Commission The Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission was established in 1967 by Section 4 of the Statutory Authorities Act, Chapter 24:01 of the Laws of Trinidad and Tobago.

This section specifies that the Commission shall consist of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and no fewer than three or more than four members.

Nothing in the Statutory Authorities Act or its attendant regulations requires the Commission to submit reports on its activities.
However, the Commission‘s powers derived from the Act are essentially the same as the powers ascribed to other Service Commissions established by the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.
The Commission has therefore adopted the practice of submitting annual reports based on the requirements of section 66B of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago Mandate The mandate of the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission is outlined in Section 5 of the Statutory Authorities Act, Chap.

24:01 which states: ―5.

(1) The Commission shall have power to appoint persons to be or act as officers and to transfer, promote, remove and exercise disciplinary control over persons so appointed.
(2) The powers conferred on the Commission may with the approval of the Prime Minister be delegated by directions in writing to any other person or authority.” Statutory Authorities Currently there are thirteen (13) Authorities under the purview of the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission.
 The Arima Borough Corporation  The Point Fortin Borough Corporation  The Port of Spain City Corporation  The San Fernando City Corporation  The St. Dominic's Children's Home  The St. Jude's School for Girls  The St. Mary's Children's Home 30  The St. Michael's School for Boys  The Agricultural Society of Trinidad and Tobago  The Cocoa and Coffee Industry Board  The Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Committee  The National Lotteries Control Board  The Zoological Society of Trinidad and Tobago The Commission regulates its own procedure, with the consent of the Prime Minister and has formulated regulations for this purpose.
Since the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission falls under the purview of this Joint Select Committee, a public hearing was conducted on Friday May 27th 2011, with representatives of SASC.
Prior to the public inquiry, the entity submitted information on the following areas as requested by the Committee:  Review of the administrative management from 2009/2010  Status report on the objectives and goals of the Commission  Medium-Term Strategic Plan up to 2015  Planned Areas of Implementation up to 2015  Legislative and Regulatory adjustments that can enhance the effectiveness of the Commission Members of the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission (SASC) who appeared at the public hearing were: Mr. Valentine Steve Alvarez Mrs. Sharmilla Nisha Harry Mr. Jagdeo Maharaj Mr. Darrell Allahar Mr. Ragbir Umraw Chairman Deputy Chairman Member Member Member Ms. Prabhawatie Maraj Executive Officer It should be noted that the Members of the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission (SASC) were sworn in on March 14th, 2011.
31 3.4.1 Inquiry Objectives The following pertinent areas were examined by the Committee:  High Court Action  Assessment of the strategic plan  Local Government Service Reform and its impact on the operations of the SASC  Municipal Police Service  Acting Appointments within the SASC 3.4.2 Findings In the course of its evaluation of the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission your Committee found that: Strategic Plan 2009-2013 The newly appointed SASC reviewed the Strategic Plan 2009-2013 which was managed by the previous Commission.
The current SASC at the time of the public inquiry was seeking to review the existing Strategic Plan to align the initiatives with the objectives of the Executive outlined in the pillars of sustainable development.

The Revised Strategic Plan to 2015 will be submitted by November 2011 with a target date for acceptance by the SASC of December 16, 2011.
The Commission‘s consultation with its Executive Officer revealed there is an existing need for a structure and guidance by the Public Management Consulting Division (PMCD) to address the non-existence of the post of a Human Resource Officer (HRO).

Acting Appointments A critical issue within the SASC is that staff has been acting in positions for over seven (7) years.

In addition there are those who have held temporary positions for a number of years.
This is a source of demotivation Procedure for acting employees The acting procedure of the SASC has resulted in a domino effect whereby newly appointed Clerk I would be placed to act as Clerk II, who was placed to act as Clerk III.

This domino practice has long plagued the SASC and by extension the larger public service.

32 Field Visits In accordance with its mandate the SASC has undertaken field visits to the thirteen (13) entities under its purview.
Field visits allow for interactive sessions with these entities to determine the needs.

High Court Action The issue being considered by the High Court is whether the Commission can adjust its Regulations to raise the minimum standard of qualifications for entry into the Municipal Police Service.

The Chief Personnel Officer is responsible for job classification.
Section 60 of the Municipal Corporation Act, Chapter 25:04 requires adjustments due to inconsistencies with respect to the substantive powers granted to the Commission.

Municipal Police Service The educational requirements of a Municipal Police Constable are three (3) O‘ levels or equivalent whilst the requirements for a Police Constable in the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) are five (5) O‘ levels.
Currently the SASC experiences difficulty with the Municipal Police Service whereby appointed Municipal recruits are offered and accept appointments in the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS).

The migration of Municipal recruits to the TTPS frustrates the efforts and depletes the resources of the SASC in filling the vacancies of the Municipal Police Constable.
Timeline According to the Report of the SASC October 2009 to September 2010 it was stated: “The recruitment exercise for Police Constables is a long and tedious one.

It takes approximately one year to arrive at the selection of persons who then undergo a six month period of training at the Police Academy before becoming eligible for permanent appointment.” Regulations Section 60 of the Municipal Corporations Act, Chap.

25:04 states: Regulations for Municipal Police Service 60.
The Commission may make Regulations providing for the classification of officers in a Municipal Police Service, including qualifications, duties and remuneration and providing generally for the discipline, good order and government of the Municipal Police Services and until such Regulations are made hereunder, Regulations made under the Police Service Act, insofar as the Commission deems them applicable to any matter concerning Municipal Police Services or Municipal Police Officers, shall apply mutatis mutandis.
33 Section 60 of the Municipal Corporations Act, Chap.

25:04 remain inconsistent with the powers of the SASC and is the subject of a High Court Action 3133 of 2003.
3.4.3 Recommendations Having received the evidence and in keeping with the terms of reference and with the general objective of improving the operations and functioning of the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission, the Committee now makes the following recommendations: (i) (ii) Amendment of the Statutory Authorities Act in the resolution of section 60 of the Municipal Corporations Act, Chap.

25:04.
25:04.

Introduction of a formal Code of Conduct for the maintenance of effective disciplinary control over officers under the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission (SASC).

(iii) Assessment of the continued relevance of the SASC.

(iv) Consideration the creation of a position for Human Resource Officer.

(v) (vi) Determine what progress has been made with Local Government Reform and how it will impact on the SASC.
The following Statutory Authorities should be removed from the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission (SASC) and placed under the Ministry of Gender, Youth and Child Development with a focus on children:  The St. Dominic's Children's Home  The St. Jude's School for Girls  The St. Mary's Children's Home  The St. Michael's School for Boys 34 Chapter 4 Observations, Summary of Recommendations and Conclusions 4.1 Observations Harmonization of the Manner of Administration Investigation into the entities by the Committee revealed a dependency by Government Ministries and Agencies upon the Service Commission Department with respect to recruitment and placement of adequately trained professionals.
The examination also showed that the complaint common among the Commissions was that of fragmentation with respect to Human Resource Management practices and procedures.

This has led to the inefficiencies experienced by the Commissions.

Another shortcoming noted during the examination was that performance appraisal reports were not submitted in a timely manner to the Commissions and this has resulted in delays in the promotion process.
It is evident from the foregoing, that human resource practices and procedures must be synchronized in order for the efficient and effective discharge of day-to-day activities.

Thus, the need exists for the review of the regulations by which the Service Commissions are governed.
35 4.2 Summary of Recommendations 4.2.1 The Teaching Service Commission (i) (ii) Review of Public Service Regulations 1966; Delegation of particular functions to the MOE with a measure of accountability; (iii) Increasing the number of full time members of the Teaching Service Commission; (iv) Adequate staffing and resourcing of the Selection Centre; (v) Review of the process of recruitment, selection, appointment and placement of teachers;  the creation of a system for the early identification and placement of teachers into positions which become vacant; (vi)  Consideration of zoning teachers during placement in secondary schools; The MOE should consider a replacement for the disestablished position of Director of School Supervision.
(vii) Review of how disciplinary matters are dealt with in order to increase efficiency and effectiveness.

The following should be considered:  Delegation to the Principal (in some instances) the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a teacher and in specified cases to take appropriate disciplinary action and report to the TSC.

Principals should consequently be trained in basic industrial relations and matters of discipline.
 The TSC and by extension the MOE should act on disciplinary matters expeditiously.

The TSC should consider:  Establish investigatory tribunals to expediently determine and make trained recommendations for matters before Investigating Officers should submit reports within 30-45 days.

Improve the timeframe for forwarding of child abuse reports by the MOE.

them.
them.

Highly   Enforcement of a Disciplinary Code of Conduct for Teachers, especially in light of reports of sexual misconduct between teacher and student.

 Establishment of a system for Alternative Dispute Resolution to deal with occurrences of misconduct by Principals and Vice Principals.

 Creation of a database with regards to disciplinary matters to track delinquent and repeat offenders.
(viii) Establishment of a Unit at the Ministry of Education to deal solely with school violence and schools gangs.
This Unit should collaborate with the TTPS to provide the necessary support, counseling and guidance to students; (ix) Consideration of implementing a Code of Conduct for secondary school students to curb the increase of school violence and gang violence; 36 (x) Creation of a database for school violence and gang related matters only to track delinquent and repeat offenders who will be dealt with by both the Ministry of Education and the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service.
4.2.2 The Police Service Commission (i) (ii) Consideration should be given to at least three positions (inclusive of the Chairman) of the PSC being made full-time positions; A review of the PSC Secretariat should be undertaken with a view to maximizing its efficiency and effectiveness; Creation of permanent rather than contract Secretariat positions should also be considered in order to attract desirable candidates; (iii) Timely completion of disciplinary matters/actions by the Commissioner of Police; (iv) Improved interface with the public; the creation of a full-time position of Communications Specialist within the PSC; creation of a website.
(v) Reinstatement of the Public Service Appeal Board.

(vi) Review of the regulations and guidelines governing the Commission.

(vii) Provision of suitable accommodation to facilitate the work of the Commission.

(viii) Expansion of the Appeals tribunal in terms of membership, so that more matters can be dealt with in an expeditious manner.
4.2.3 The Public Service Commission Currently the Public Service Commission is the largest employment agency in Trinidad and Tobago (i) (ii) Development of senior level accountability and a system by which Permanent Secretaries can be assessed.

The performance appraisal of Permanent Secretaries should fall under the Public Service Commission.

A review of the structure of the Public Service Commission should be undertaken with a notion of introducing new management structures.
(iii) Review of the continued fragmentation of the human resource function with a view to bring more cohesion to the function and thus increase efficiency and effectiveness.

(iv) Consider the expansion of the management capacity of Permanent Secretaries.

(v) Delegation of the functions of recruitment and selection to line Ministries and 37 Departments in relation to offices specific to them.
(vi) Review of the existing disciplinary procedure to ensure equity and fairness when dealing with disciplinary infractions.

(vii) Review of the Public Service Regulations to ensure relevance and compatibility with strategic objectives.

(viii) Development and maintenance of an electronic database for handling requests for transfers of public officers.

(ix) Development of a mechanism to ensure effective problem solving and implementation of solutions in the Public Service.
Engage in the modernization of qualification requirements and job descriptions.

(x) (xi) Approval of a permanent structure for Tobago.

(xii) A review of the Public Service Commission‘s strategic plan.

4.2.4 The Statutory Authorities’ Service Commission (i) (ii) Amendment of the Statutory Authorities Act in the resolution of section 60 of the Municipal Corporations Act, Chap.

25:04.
25:04.

Introduction of a formal Code of Conduct for the maintenance of effective disciplinary control over officers under the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission (SASC).

(iii) Assessment of the continued relevance of the SASC.

(iv) Consideration the creation of a position for Human Resource Officer.

(v) (vi) Determine what progress has been made with Local Government Reform and how it will impact on the SASC.
The following Statutory Authorities should be removed from the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission (SASC) and placed under the Ministry of Gender, Youth and Child Development with a focus on children:  The St. Dominic's Children's Home  The St. Jude's School for Girls  The St. Mary's Children's Home  The St. Michael's School for Boys 38 4.3 General Recommendations The Committee therefore proposes the following general recommendations which it believes are important for enhancing the operations of the Service Commissions: (i) Technology Investments  Upgrade the provision of services through the incorporation of information technology  Investments in staff and technology to establish fully equipped Information Technology Departments (ii) Human Resource Investments  Provision of qualified, properly trained and motivated staff is necessary to allow for efficient and effective functioning  Recruitment of a Communications Officer and Public Relations Officer to improve the visibility and outreach of the Commissions, in each case, to its stakeholders (iii) Website Development   Improve the accessibility of information by the provision of educational literature and provision of legislative information Introduction of online forums, application submissions, consultations and query forms to allow greater accessibility, transparency and accountability (iv) Outreach Programmes  Increase public participation and dissemination of information through outreach programmes at educational institutions and within communities (v) Legislative  Consultations with each Service Commission to enable an understanding of its legislative limitations and to draft proposals.
(vi) Adherence to timelines and deadlines  Systematic preparation and implementation of strategic plans for the development of each Service Commission  Improved adherence to deadlines and adherence to timelines to dissipate tendencies of complacency and slow progress 39 (vii) Establishment of Forums  Quarterly written submissions to the Joint Select Committee either to voice any concerns of a Service Commission or to highlight human resource activities, resource challenges, status of implementation of strategic plans, public education activities, disciplinary matters and outreach programmes.
(viii) Commission Membership  Certain Commission Member positions should be made full-time with a commensurate remuneration package 4.4 Conclusions The Committee has probed the issues of inefficiency and ineffectiveness which have plagued the Teaching Service Commission, the Police Service Commission, the Public Service Commission and the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission which it agreed warranted investigation and has proffered recommendations to enhance the functioning of each Commission.
Your Committee noted that the one complaint common among the Commissions was the issue of fragmentation in Human Resource Management processes.

This has resulted in the inefficiencies experienced by the Commissions.
Finally and most notably were the co-operative efforts of the Officials of the various Service Commissions as well as the Director of Personnel Administration in the provision of information requested by the Committee which allowed for greater insight into the efficiency and effectiveness of the Service Commissions.

The Committee therefore respectfully submits its Report for consideration.

40 Sgd.

Mr. Subhas Ramkhelawan Chairman Sgd.

Mr. Elton Prescott, S.C. Vice-Chairman Sgd.


Brigadier John Sandy Member Sgd.

Mr. Chandresh Sharma Member Sgd.

Mr. David Abdulah Member Sgd.

Mr. Rodger Samuel Member Sgd.

Mrs. Joanne Thomas Member Sgd.

Ms. Shamfa Cudjoe Member Sgd.

Mr. Prakash Ramadhar Member Ms. Marlene McDonald Member Sgd.
Mrs. Vernella Alleyne-Toppin Member 41 42 Appendix 1 Areas of Responsibility 43 THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO AND REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND SERVICE COMMISSIONS WITH THE EXCEPTIONOF THE JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION 44 Areas of responsibility: Police Service Commission Public Service Commission Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission Teaching Service Commission Arima Borough Corporation Chaguanas Borough Corporation Couva/Tabaquite/Talparo Regional Corporation Diego Martin Regional Corporation Mayaro/Rio Claro Regional Corporation Penal/Debe Regional Corporation Point Fortin Borough Corporation Port of Spain City Corporation Princes Town Regional Corporation San Fernando City Corporation Sangre Grande Regional Corporation San Juan/Laventille Regional Corporation Siparia Regional Corporation Tunapuna/Piarco Regional Corporation 45 46 Appendix 2 List of Reports Referred 47 48 List of Reports Referred NAME OF REPORT DATE LAID IN HOR DATE LAID IN SENATE 1.
The Annual Report of the Public Service 10.12.2010 07.12.2010 Commission for the year 2009 2.

The Annual Report of the Public Service 20.11.2009 01.12.2009 Commission for the year 2008 3.

The Annual Report of the Police Service Commission for the period 1st January, 2009 to 30th June, 2010 04.02.2011 01.02.2011 4.

The Annual Report of the Police Service Commission 14.11.2008 18.11.2008 for the year 2008 5.

Annual Report of the Teaching Service Commission 29.10.2010 02.11.2010 2009 6.
Annual Report of the Teaching Service Commission 09.10.2009 05.10.2009 2008 7.

Report of the Statutory Authorities Service 04.02.2011 01.02.2011 Commission October 2009 to September 2010 8.

Report of the Statutory Authorities Service 16.07.2010 06.07.2010 Commission October 2008 - September 2009 9.

Annual Report of the Arima Borough Corporation 10.12.2010 14.12.2010 for the period 2009 10.

Administrative Report of the Chaguanas Borough 04.02.2011 01.02.2011 Corporation for the period 2008-2009 11.
Administrative Report of the Chaguanas Borough 14.09.2009 22.09.2009 Corporation for the period 2006-2007 12.

Administrative Report of the Couva/Tabaquite/ Talparo Regional Corporation for the period 2004- 2005 01.09.2006 29.08.2006 13.

Annual Administrative Report of the Diego Martin Regional Corporation for the period 2008-2009 14.01.2011 18.01.2011 14.

Administrative Report of the Mayaro/ Rio Claro Regional Corporation for the period 2006-2007 04.03.2009 03.03.2009 49 NAME OF REPORT 15.
Administrative Report of the Penal/Debe Regional Corporation for the period October 2006 to September 2007 16.

Annual Administrative report of the Point Fortin Borough Corporation for the period October 01, 2004, to September 30, 2005 17.

Administrative Report of the Point Fortin Borough Corporation for the financial year October 2001- September 2002 DATE LAID IN HOR DATE LAID IN SENATE 18.02.2009 03.03.2009 25.03.2011 01.03.2011 11.07.2003 15.07.2003 18.
Administrative Report of the Port of Spain City Corporation for the year ended December 31st 2002 11.07.2003 08.07.2003 19.

Administrative Report of the Princes Town Regional 18.02.2011 15.02.2011 Corporation for the year 2009-2010 20.

Administrative Report of the Princes Town Regional 04.07.2008 08.07.2008 Corporation for the year 2006-2007 21.

Administrative Report of the San Fernando City 01.04.2011 Corporation for the year 2008-2009 22.
Administrative Report of the San Fernando City 04.09.2009 22.09.2009 Corporation for the year 2007-2008 23.

Report of the Sangre Grande Regional Corporation for the period October 2008 to September, 2009 01.04.2011 05.04.2011 24.

Report of the Sangre Grande Regional Corporation for the period October 2007 to September, 2008 11.02.2011 15.02.2011 25.

Report of the Sangre Grande Regional Corporation for the period October 2006 to September, 2007 11.02.2011 15.02.2011 26.
Report of the Sangre Grande Regional Corporation for the period October 2005 to September, 2006 11.02.2011 15.02.2011 27.

Report of the Sangre Grande Regional Corporation 11.03.2005 08.03.2005 for the period October 2003-September 2004 28.

Annual Administrative Report of the San Juan /Laventille Regional Corporation for the period 2006-2007 02.05.2008 06.05.2008 50 NAME OF REPORT 29.

Annual Administrative Report of the Siparia Regional Corporation for the period October 2006- September 2007 30.
Administrative Report of the Tunapuna/ Piarco Regional Corporation for the period 1st October, 2007 to 30th September, 2008 31.
Administrative Report of the Tunapuna/ Piarco Regional Corporation for the period 1st October 2006 to 30th September 2007 DATE LAID IN HOR DATE LAID IN SENATE 18.06.2008 17.06.2008 23.02.2011 01.03.2011 29.09.2008 06.10.2008 51 52 Appendix 3 Minutes of Proceedings 53 THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO AND REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND SERVICE COMMISSIONS WITH THE EXCEPTIONOF THE JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION 54 MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM #3, THE RED HOUSE, ABERCROMBY STREET, PORT OF SPAIN ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2011 AT 9:30 A.M.
Present were: Mr. Subhas Ramkhelawan Mr. Elton Prescott, S.C. Mr. Rodger Samuel Mrs. Joanne Thomas Mr. David Abdulah Mr. Chandresh Sharma Mrs. Jacqueline Phillip Stoute Ms. Candice Skerrette Ms. Indira Binda Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Member Member Member Secretary Assistant Secretary Graduate Research Assistant The following Officials from Teaching Service Commission were also available: Ms. Hyacinth Guy Dr. Anna Mahase Mr. Zaffar Ali Mr. Oliver Flax Prof. Ramesh Deosaran Ms. Yvette Phillip Absent/Excused were: Ms. Marlene McDonald Mrs. Therese Baptiste-Cornelis Brig.
John Sandy Mr. Prakash Ramadhar Mrs. Vernella Alleyne-Toppin Ms. Shamfa Cudjoe Chairman Member Member Member Member Member Member (Excused) Member (Excused) Member (Excused) Member (Excused) Member Member INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Chairman called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

The Chairman welcomed officials of Teaching Service Commission (TSC).

Introductions 1.2 were exchanged.


The Chairman of the Teaching Service Commission was invited to make brief opening 1.3 remarks on the work of the Commission and its future agenda.
DISCUSSION WITH OFFICIALS OF THE TEACHING SERVICE COMMISSION 2.1 The following issues were discussed: (i) Mandate of Teaching Service Commission 55 Members were informed that the mandate of the TSC is in accordance with Section 125 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago and that the Commission is empowered to: (a) (b) (c) appoint persons to hold or act in public offices in the teaching service established under the Education Act; remove and exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices; and enforce standards of conduct on such officers.
(ii) Standards of Conduct The Committee was informed that the TSC has adopted part of the Public Service Regulations.

The Officials conveyed that they are aware of teacher indiscipline and the Commission has been working with the Ministry of Education (MOE) to put systems in place to enforce standards of conduct.
The Committee was further informed of the challenge of enforcing a standard of discipline at a faster rate as an investigating officer is assigned by the MOE to investigate allegations of misconduct and generate a report.

It was indicated that the structure requires enhancing and more resources need to be placed into the industrial relations unit at the Ministry in order to create sturdier lines of communications with supervisors of school districts and by extension encourage timely reports.
In addition, TSC conveyed plans to develop its own regulations as to how investigations should be conducted such as the setting up of an Investigating Unit under Service Commission.
(iii) Teacher Employment Queries were raised on the manner in which teachers are employed, teacher requirements, the number of teacher intake per subject area, reasons for prolonged periods to fill vacancies, reasons the criteria for appointment for senior positions are secret and the reasons teachers are not assigned within their geographical areas.

The Officials agreed to forward these details to the Committee.
(iv) Teacher Abandonment The Committee was informed that as at February 2011, there were 49 disciplinary cases.

There were 24 cases of abandonment, 7 of which are before the court and 22 cases of misconduct.

Further, reasons for abandonment are because individuals enter the profession on a temporary basis and leave to study.

(v) Teacher Performance The officials conveyed that the TSC can only access performance appraisal reports from the MOE, when TSC is filling a vacancy.
This is because TSC advises the MOE in areas of appointment and discipline rather than performance.

The TSC has urged the Office of the Chief Executive Officer to look at teacher performance that is affecting schools.

56 The Committee was informed that since 2007 that any case of teacher abuse and violence affecting the safety of a child were required to be reported immediately to the TSC.
In 2009, this policy was revised to include cases that affect the performance of the school such as insubordination and indiscipline.

(vi) Teacher Irregular Attendance Members were informed that the process for reporting irregular teacher attendance starts with the principal, then to the school supervisor and finally to the MOE.

However, information pertaining to irregularity and punctuality goes from the schools directly to the Ministry of Education on a regular basis.
The Commission‘s attention is sought when there are allegations of misconduct.

Subsequently a decision is taken as to whether disciplinary procedures should be initiated.

The Committee was told that in 2009 procedures were revised to include anything which affects the stability or performance of the school.

It was pointed out that with the removal of the position of Director of School Supervisors (DSS) a gap currently exists as no replacement position has been appointed.
The DSS played a role in bringing all the districts together.

Although the disestablishment of the DSS position is not under the TSC mandate, the reasons for the removal of the director were to decentralize the functions of MOE, to create education districts with quality assurance.

(vii) Vacancies With respect to the issue of filling vacant positions within the Teaching Service the Committee was told that in 2005 there were 2,132 vacancies.
Subsequently, new positions were created and by 2007/2008 most of the vacancies had been filled.

In 2007 appointments were made to outstanding positions of deans, heads and senior teaching positions in schools.

However, a few vacancies still exist.

Further, the Committee learnt that the TSC was at the point of making appointments to vacant positions which arose towards the end of 2010.

Plans are in place for interviews to be set up to fill vacant positions that it is anticipated will arise in 2011.
It was emphasized that these interviews would be carried out before the end of March 2011.

In addition, there has been a decline in the number of vacancies in the areas of principals, vice principal, deans/head of departments and senior teachers from the period 2005-2009 to December 2010.

However, the 541 vacancies as at December 2010 represent a new wave/cycle of vacancies.
The Committee recommended that future administrative reports indicate the number of vacancies and appointments which should be un-clustered to represent the primary and secondary schools separately.

The officials advised that the appointment of primary school teachers was delegated to the Ministry of Education.

Officials advised the vacancies list in administrative offices from 2006 to 2009 in the 2009 Administrative Report reflects only secondary schools.
57 Further, the TSC only fills positions established by the government and contract positions and the supply of teachers is determined by the MOE.

Officials conveyed that the process for filling a vacancy in secondary schools has shifted from a queue-in-line system to prioritized areas of need.

The candidates for priority areas are interviewed and placed on the ‗order of merit list‘, so that vacancies can be filled as soon as they arise.
The Committee was informed of challenges [struggles] by TSC to receive vacancy information from the MOE.

Officials recommended in order to alleviate this problem, that the Public Service Regulations 1966 should be reviewed to decrease the level of dependency on MOE and to place constitutional accountability of the MOE to give TSC what they need.
They further conveyed that one interim measure can be, that at meetings with MOE, an agenda item can be raised on the expected number of vacancies in subject areas (viii) Mechanisms to Guide MOE Officials conveyed that there is a database which indicates when teachers are ready to retire at the expected age of 60.

However, there is no database linked to the number of teachers per subject area that would be needed in five years.
Although, this is not a function of TSC, these measures can be recommended to the MOE.
(ix) Stakeholder Management The Committee was informed of the following tentative schedule of the TSC:  January to March – meetings with the Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers‘ Association (TTUTA), meetings with the Association of Denominational Boards and meeting with Tobago stakeholders;  April to June – hosting a press conference to country, meeting with the Association of School Principals (April) and meeting with two educational districts (May/June);  July to September – meeting with the MOE, meeting with school supervisors and meeting with two educational districts (September);  October to December – meeting with two educational districts and hosting a press conference (December).
(x) Discipline Officials conveyed that the human relations and industrial relations structure currently inhibits performance.

Thus, there is the existence of disparate groups of the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) and the MOE that are not tied together.

The discipline process flows from the principal, to school supervisor, to CPO, to Permanent Secretary and then to the TSC.
The TSC is currently in the process of drafting proposals to restructure human resource synergies to implement immediate discipline action from the MOE to TSC.

Currently, if the matter does not come before the TSC, no sanctions can be taken.

In addition, the officials conveyed their concerns of cases where the MOE does not give TSC information requested and potential under-reporting of indiscipline cases.
58 (xi) Recommendations The Officials recommended that following measures would improve its operations: (a) Review of Public Service Regulations 1966; (b) Delegation of particular functions to the MOE with a measure of accountability; (c) Increasing the number of members of the TSC; (d) Improving the timeframe of child abuse reports forwarded from MOE would improve its operations; (e) Adequate staffing of Selection Centre; (f) Delegating to the Principal the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a teacher and in specified cases, to take appropriate disciplinary action and to report to the TSC via the Supervisor and the Permanent Secretary and to take such disciplinary action as shall be approved by the TSC.
(xii) Future Plans The Committee was advised that critical areas to be addressed during the next three to five years are legislative requirements, regulatory requirements, resource requirements, real- time appointments, reviewing the process for candidate assessment and simplifying layers of human resource management.

In addition, from December 2010 the TSC commenced the drafting of a medium term strategic plan on achievements, challenges and the way forward.
At present, they are still meeting with stakeholders.

The Committee commended the TSC for grappling with vast volumes of work in a short 1.3 time frame and encouraged the setting of benchmarks of achievement for TSC.
[The meeting was suspended] REQUESTED INFORMATION The Committee requested submission of the following to the Secretariat by the Officials of 2.1 the TSC: (i) information in relation to the number of primary and secondary teacher vacancies to ascertain whether the number of individuals in teacher training is sufficient to fill vacancies.

(ii) information with respect to the training and requirements for deans and senior teacher positions.
IN CAMERA MEETING 3.1 The meeting resumed in Committee Room 2 at 12:04 p.m. 3.2 The Chairman indicated that excuses were received from Ms. Marlene McDonald, Mrs. Therese Baptiste-Cornelis, Brig.

John Sandy and Mr. Prakash Ramadhar regarding their absence from the day‘s proceedings.

59 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES There being no amendments or omissions, the Minutes were confirmed by Mr. David 4.1 Abdulah and seconded by Ms. Joanne Thomas.
MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Concerns were again raised with respect to meeting on the 4th Friday of every month.

The 5.1 Chairman indicated discussions will be held with the Leader of Government Business in the House of Representatives regarding the tentative schedule for the month of March 2011.

5.2 The Committee agreed that it will next meet with the Police Service Commission to evaluate its efficiency and effectiveness on Friday March 25 2011.
Members also agreed that the same format used with the TSC will be maintained.

The Committee agreed that the TSC should have a two-month timeframe within which to 5.3 submit any additional information requested.

ADJOURNMENT 6.1 to Friday, March 25, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.

There being no other business, the Chairman thanked Members and adjourned the meeting 6.2 The adjournment was taken at 12:21p.m.

I certify that the Minutes are true and correct.

Sgd.

Chairman Sgd.
Sgd.

Chairman Sgd.

Secretary February 28, 2011 60 MINUTES OF THE FIFTH MEETING HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM 2 AND THE PARLIAMENT CHAMBER, THE RED HOUSE, ABERCROMBY STREET, PORT OF SPAIN ON FRIDAY MARCH 25, 2011 AT 9:30 A.M.

Present were: Mr. Subhas Ramkhelawan Mr. Elton Prescott, S.C. Mr. Rodger Samuel Mrs. Joanne Thomas Mr. David Abdulah Mr. Chandresh Sharma Mrs. Therese Baptiste-Cornelis Brig.
John Sandy Mr. Prakash Ramadhar Mrs. Vernella Alleyne-Toppin Ms. Shamfa Cudjoe Mrs. Jacqueline Phillip Stoute Ms. Candice Skerrette Ms. Indira Binda - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Secretary Assistant Secretary Graduate Research Assistant The following Officials from Police Service Commission were also available: Mr. Nizam Mohammed Mr. Addison Khan Mr. Kenneth Parker Mrs. Jacqueline Cheesman Mr. Martin George - - - - - Mrs. Gloria Edwards-Joseph - Ms. Natasha Seecharan Ms. Allison Douglas Ms. Anoushka Ramsaran Dr. Kerry Sumesar-Rai Mr. Alfred Gray Mr. Anthony Samuel Mrs. Satie Maniram Mrs. Anne-Marie Andrews - - - - - - - - Chairman Member Member Member Member Director of Personnel Administration, Service Commissions Department Legal Adviser, Service Commissions Department Senior State Counsel, Service Commissions Department Senior State Counsel, Service Commissions Department Director Monitoring, Evaluation and Education Assistant Director, Research and Evaluation Assistant Director, Public Education Assistant Director, Audit Senior Human Resource Adviser (Secretary) Absent/Excused was: Ms. Marlene McDonald - Member 61 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Chairman called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
The Chairman welcomed officials of the Police Service Commission (PSC).

Introductions 1.2 were exchanged.

The Chairman of the PSC was invited to make brief opening remarks on the work of the 1.3 Commission.

1.4 The Minister of National Security recused himself from the interrogation process primarily because of the relationship between the Ministry of National Security and the Police Service Commission.

He however asked to remain in the Chamber during the day‘s proceedings.
DISCUSSIONS WITH OFFICIALS OF THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION The following issues were raised during discussions with Officials of the Police Service 2.1 Commission: (i) Accommodation The Committee was informed of the unsuitability and inadequacy of the present location of the Commission.

Members were further informed that meetings of the Police Service Commission are held in the facilities of another Service Commission.

The matter has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Public Administration.
At present suitable accommodation is being sought outside of Port of Spain.

(ii) Filling of PSC Secretariat Vacancies Officials indicated that forty-two (42) contract positions were created and advertised.

Additionally, a consultant was engaged to carry out the selection process.

Persons were identified and terms and reference were set by the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO).

The existing vacancies are Communication Specialist and Legal Advisor.
The absence of a Legal Advisor has led to the use of the Legal Advisors of the Service Commissions Department and there have been instances when they were unavailable.

In addition, advertised vacancies such as Senior Attorneys, Case Management Officer, Junior Legal Research Officer, Audit Analyst, Financial Analyst and Communication Specialist have received a low response due to uncompetitive compensation packages.
(iii) Legislative and Regulatory Members were advised that draft regulations for the PSC are outstanding.

A legal consultant has been retained for drafting the regulations.

62 (iv) Procedures for Appointments Officials of the PSC stated that the selection process for the appointment of Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police is expensive and unsatisfactory.

The PSC has written to the Attorney General in order to engage in discussions regarding a change of the process.
(v) Medium term Strategic Plan It was conveyed that the draft Medium Term Strategic Plan has not been completed due to staffing issues.

A joint effort is needed between the PSC and the Commissioner of Police is order to facilitate its completion.

(vi) Disciplinary Tribunal Members were informed that the Commissioner of Police sets up disciplinary tribunals.

Disciplinary tribunals are composed of police officers whose responsibility is to inquire into disciplinary charges filed against police officers.
When the disciplinary tribunal has completed its work, a report is made to the Commissioner of Police, who then decides whether any disciplinary action should be taken against a police officer.

Subsequent to the above, the police officer has a right of appeal to the Police Service Commission.

(vii) Appeals Tribunal The Appeals Tribunal is comprised of three (3) members of the Commission.

The mandate of the Appeals Tribunal is to determine appeals against the decision of the Commissioner of Police.
If a decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal is not challenged by an officer, no information is forwarded to the PSC.

Members were advised that depending on the length of the case, the matter may take six (6) weeks to two (2) months to complete.

At present, the tribunal lacks a court room, a note-taker, law books, computers, sufficient staff, an orderly and a registry.
(viii) Filling of Vacancies The Committee was informed that in filling existing vacancies the Commission will request that Cabinet create permanent instead of contract positions on the staff establishment of the Service.

This however, can only be done in conjunction with the Public Management Consulting Division (PMCD).

63 The PMCD is responsible for position management in the public service.

Once there is agreement, a note is sent to Cabinet.
Subsequent to concurrence by the Cabinet, the positions are advertised.

(ix) Use of Power of the Police Service Commission With respect to the issue of use of its power, officials of the Police Service Commission conveyed that its responsibility is to use its powers and authority in an unbiased and extremely focused manner, in order to ensure that things are done fairly and that all police officers feel comfortable within the service.
(x) The Public Service Appeal Board Concerning the question of the Public Service Appeal Board the Committee was told that the Board is in abeyance at present.

Further, in 2006 the new Act removed the Public Service Appeal Board which police officers could have utilized prior to the amendment of the Act.

It was further stated that the Police Service Commissioner and the Deputy Police Commissioner are provided with no alternative methods for redress in case decisions made against them.
This issue has been brought to the attention of the Law Reform Commission and is currently under investigation.

Since 2006 no appeals have been heard.

The Commission has requested that the Act again be amended in order to reinstate the Public Service Appeal Board [PASB].
(xi) Ethnic Balance of Police Service  The PSC Chairman commented on the present ethnic composition of the Police Promotion Advisory Board [PPAB] and that of the majority of senior positions such as Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Senior Superintendents within the Police Service.
 With regard to the Police Promotion Advisory Board [PPAB] he stated, inter alia, that: ―I have had a letter, Mr. Chairman,… a copy of a letter sent to me in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, which was addressed to the Commissioner of Police by the President of the Police Social Welfare Association.

He is a sergeant of police and he is facing a Promotion Advisory Board and the ethnic composition of the board, he feels threatened.
He does not feel secure and he was asking for a review of that situation.

Monday coming superintendents would be writing their exams.
The better ones may move to senior superintendents and you may have a better mixture, but when those in the lower ranks have to interact with those in the senior ranks and they 64 feel and we pretend that there is not this kind of strain in relations, particularly with the history of the police service, we cannot hope to really build a police service unless these matters are corrected, and you do not approach a matter like this in an inflammatory, passionate, emotional kind of way.‖  In respect of senior positions in the Police Service he stated, inter alia, that: ―I have some figures provided to the DPA from the Commissioner of Police of the ethnic composition of the leadership of the police service.
Out of 10 assistant commissioners of police you do not have a single one of Indian origin.

You have three deputy commissioners, none of Indian origin.

We have one Commissioner of Police.

Senior superintendents, you have 15, all after African origin, none of Indian origin.

Happily, when you look at the figures, you see at the superintendent level, you have 21 of African origin and 10 of East Indian origin.
Since within recent times, we have been emphasizing the question of meritocracy, as opposed to seniority.‖  Some members of the Committee expressed concern about the comments made by the PSC Chairman on these matters.

 Three members of the PSC, namely Mr. George, Mrs. Cheesman and Mr. Parker disassociated themselves from the position taken by the PSC Chairman on these matters.
that It was advised the Police Service Commission (xii) its responsibilities, when and if discriminatory issues are reported, should determine whether or not, on the basis of the facts that discrimination took place, and if discrimination did indeed occur, to take the necessary corrective action.

The Commission should ensure that those responsible for matters of promotion have clear guidelines which will guarantee the promotion of persons on the basis of performance and meritocracy.
in discharging (xiii) It was further emphasized that it is the Commission's responsibility is to ensure that the system of promotions is fair and equitable and does not result in discrimination, and if discrimination occurs, that persons who feel aggrieved can appeal the matter and that the concern will be determined fairly by the Commission.
RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 The Officials indicated that the following measures would improve its operations:  At least three members (inclusive of the Chairman) of the PSC should be made full- time positions;  A review of the PSC Secretariat should be undertaken;  Creating permanent Secretariat positions in order to attract desirable candidates;  Considering timeliness for completion of disciplinary matters/actions by Commissioner of Police; the 65  The Public Education Unit requires a full time Communications Specialist to interact with the public; Introduce additional ways to interact with the police service;   The Public Service Appeal Board should be reinstated.
[The meeting was suspended at 12:03 p.m.] REQUESTED INFORMATION The Committee requested submission of the following to the Secretariat by the Officials of 4.1 the PSC: (i) Status Report on Appendix II of the 2009 Report; (ii) The number of outstanding matters before Disciplinary Tribunals; (iii) The intended timeline for completion of the drafting of the PSC Regulations; (iv) A comprehensive list of requirements of the PSC to effectively conduct its (v) (vi) business.
Feedback in writing with respect to the completion of the Medium Term Strategic Plan.

The methods used for monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of the performance of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police.

(vii) Legislative and regulatory adjustments (viii) Right of Appeal of the Commissioner and Deputy Commission of Police.

IN CAMERA MEETING 5.1 The meeting resumed in Committee Room #2 at 12:07 p.m.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 6.1 The following corrections were made: On Pg 1, insert the word ‗Excuses’ after the words ‗Mrs.

Vernella Alleyne-Toppin‘ and ‗Ms.

Shamfa Cudjoe‘ On Pg 5, paragraph (l), delete the word ‗drafted’ and insert the words ‗commenced a drafting of‘ The motion for the confirmation of the Minutes was moved by Mr. David Abdulah and 6.2 seconded by Mrs. Joanne Thomas.

6.3 The Minutes, as amended, were thereby confirmed.
MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES 7.1 The Committee requested that the Secretariat conduct research clarifying the legislative authority for the Ministry of Education to appoint Primary School teachers and whether proper delegation was done.

66 The Committee acknowledged apologies from Mrs. Vernella Alleyne-Toppin from its last 7.2 meeting with the Teaching Service Commission.
OTHER BUSINESS 8.1 The Chairman directed the Secretary to:  Request an update from the Teaching Service Commission on the status of previously requested areas;  Request the expected timeframe for submissions.

On the issue of reducing the quorum from five (5) to four (4), the Committee agreed that 8.2 the quorum should remain five (5) members.
8.3 The Committee agreed that it will next meet on Friday April 29, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. At this meeting the Committee proposes to commence an evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the Public Service Commission.

It was further agreed that the same procedure used for the Teaching and Police Service 8.4 Commissions would be maintained when the Committee meets with the Public Service Commission.
ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the Chairman thanked Members and adjourned the meeting 9.1 to Friday, April 29, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. 9.2 The adjournment was taken at 12:31 p.m.

I certify that the Minutes are true and correct.

Sgd.

Chairman Sgd.

Secretary March 25, 2011 67 MINUTES OF THE SIXTH MEETING HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM #2 AND PARLIAMENT CHAMBER, THE RED HOUSE, ABERCROMBY STREET, PORT OF SPAIN ON FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 2011 AT 9:31 A.M.
Present were: Mr. Subhas Ramkhelawan Mr. Elton Prescott, S.C. Mrs. Joanne Thomas Mr. David Abdulah Mr. Chandresh Sharma Mrs. Therese Baptiste-Cornelis Ms. Shamfa Cudjoe Mrs. Jacqueline Phillip Stoute Ms. Candice Skerrette Ms. Indira Binda - - - - - - - - - - Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Member Member Member Member Secretary Assistant Secretary Graduate Research Assistant The following Officials from Public Service Commission (PSC) were also available: Ambassador Christopher Thomas Mrs. Zaida Rajnauth Mr. Neil Rolingson Ms. Jeanne Roseman Professor Kenneth Ramchand Mrs. Gloria Edwards-Joseph Ms. Natasha Seecharan - - - - - - - Chairman Deputy Chair Member Member Member Dir.
of Personnel Administration, Service Commissions Department Legal Adviser, Service Commissions Department Senior State Counsel, Ms. Allison Douglas Service Commissions Department Ms. Anoushka Ramsaran, Service Commissions Department Ms. Suzette Lynch Senior State Counsel, Ms. Kavita Jodhan, State Counsel II Senior HM Advisor - - - - Absent/Excused were: Mr. Prakash Ramadhar Brig.
John Sandy Mrs. Vernella Alleyne-Toppin Mr. Rodger Samuel Ms. Marlene McDonald - - - - - Member (excused) Member (excused) Member Member (excused) Member INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. 68 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 2.1 The Minutes were amended as follows: (i) Page 4 paragraph (k) Delete the word ―Superintendants‖ and substitute ―Superintendents‖ (ii) Page 5 Bullet (k) line 13 Delete the word ―after‖ and substitute ―of‖ The Minutes as amended were confirmed by Mr. Prescott S.C. and seconded by Mr. 2.2 Abdulah.
MATTER ARISING FROM MINUTES The Committee was informed that the following matters were received and forwarded to 3.1 Members by the Committee‘s Secretariat:  Request from the Police Service Commission for additional submissions  Request in respect of research to clarify the legislative authority for the Ministry of Education to appoint Primary School teachers and proper delegation  Update from the Teaching Service Commission on the status of previously requested areas The Committee agreed to meet for a second time with the Police Service Commission 3.2 before the Parliament goes on recess.
The Secretary was directed to circulate the document regarding research conducted on the 3.3 Teaching Service Commission to Members.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE It was agreed that one (1) report would be collated to include all Service Commissions 4.1 because of similarity of certain issues.

The Secretary was directed to commence preparation of a draft report under the sectional 4.2 headings of fragmentation, delegation, coordination of human resources, regulation and legislation.
NEXT MEETING 5.1 The Committee agreed that it will next meet on Friday May 27, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. with officials of the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission.

The Secretary was directed to arrange accordingly.

69 The meeting was suspended and Members proceeded to the Chamber to meet with the 5.2 entity in public.

DISCUSSIONS WITH OFFICIALS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION The Chairman welcomed officials of the Public Service Commission (PSC).

Introductions 6.1 were exchanged.


The Chairman of the PSC was invited to make brief opening remarks with respect to 6.2 the work of the Commission.
The following critical issues were raised:  Human Resource Management – fragmentation of human resource management as a result of vacancies in the service;  Succession Planning;  Promotion – performance appraisal delays;  Recruitment and Selection – collaboration with Ministry of Public Administration and assessment;  Disciplinary Process – disciplinary tribunals, one-man tribunals and litigation issues; and  Relationship with Ministry of Public Administration.
The issues raised by Members of the Committee and responses given by Officials of the 6.3 Public Service Commission during discussions are detailed hereunder: (xiv) Weaknesses – SWOT Analysis Officials conveyed that many of the weaknesses of the public service cannot be handled by the PSC only.

The PSC is advised by the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) and at present there are 35 to 45 issues outstanding.
Members were informed that without an effective coordinating mechanism for human resource management, there will continue to be silos.

(xv) Promotions The Committee was advised that the ineffectiveness of performance appraisal delivery has caused delays in the promotion process.

Further, in order to remove the backlog of promotions, the PSC had to establish an amnesty period for its submission.
(xvi) Permanent Secretaries Officials indicated to the Committee that a performance appraisal system which reaches the level of Deputy Permanent Secretaries exist at this time.

There is however no direct performance system for Permanent Secretaries.

At present there is a Ministerial Performance Framework which looks at the roles and functions of Permanent Secretaries and whether the mandate of the Ministry was being realized.
70 PSC conveyed further that the document is not ideal for the assessment of performance management as it does not consider duties in the area of financial management and human resources.

The PSC does not assess the performance of Permanent Secretaries.

Currently, every Ministry has its own strategic plan and each Ministry develops measurable objectives that would lend to the goals and achievement of the plan.

In addition, each Minister has input in determining performance measurement standards.
In 2006 certain functions were delegated to Permanent Secretaries, heads of department and Deputy Permanent Secretaries.

This measure had and must continue to be supported by proper appointments, accountability and performance appraisals for Permanent Secretaries.

(xvii) Coordination and Fragmentation The officials conveyed that the Commission is at present in consultation with the Ministry of Public Administration to devise an authoritative framework for coordination.
A coordinating mechanism had been established and was the responsibility of the Deputy Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Public Administration.

The PSC expressed the view that this approach was inadequate.

(xviii) Mandate of the Commission With respect to its mandate, the Committee was informed that the Commission is responsible for promotions, appointments, discipline, removal of officers, transfers and confirmation of officers.

(xix) Regulations The Regulations were promulgated in 1966.
Consequently, meetings were convened with various business units within the Service Commission to consider the regulations and the problems and challenges in the application of the regulations to its work.

Moving from seniority to the competency-based framework of meritocracy was one of the issues considered.
(xx) Constraints of filling vacancies Officials conveyed that performance of the PSC should be judged on the basis of its overall structure and how the organization advances its responsibilities and functions.

Although admissions were made that performance targets in this area have not been met, in many instances the PSC has been crippled in filling vacancies because many candidates lack the requisite training and qualifications.
71 (xxi) Recruitment and Selection It was conveyed that in the case of vacancies in the Ministry of Health it is not just the issue of filling vacancies but qualifications and training.

Officials cited that seven out of ten persons sent by the Ministry to fill vacancies are under-qualified and therefore the Commission has to compromise its decision in the interest of the country.
This results in individuals of the medical profession working in areas where the requirements of the CPO are not fully supported by the qualifications.

Further, there are instances where vacancies have not been qualified by the Director of Personnel Administration, delays in classification of certain positions, legislative amendments are required for certain positions and the freezing of certain positions by the Ministry of Finance.
In light of the above, contract officers have been used to fill vacancies.

(xxii) Discrimination of public officers There is a specific Unit which deals with representations concerning inaccurate performance assessments and the functions of public officers.

However, an information vacuum exists within the public service and therefore bits of information that come up may not always be accurate.
The statement ―to protect officers from unfair discrimination‖ refers to decisions not taken by the Service commission but by another organization.

These decisions may impact negatively on officers.

(xxiii) Legislative Review With respect to legislative review, the Commission suggested that the supervisory role of permanent secretaries should be extended to total management.

(xxiv) Assessment Centre Exercise In 2004, the whole question of Assessment Centre was introduced to Trinidad and Tobago.
This exercise was not to be restricted to Permanent Secretaries and deputy permanent secretaries but to permeate the entire public service.

The new position of deputy permanent secretary was seen as the ideal starting point to determine the kinds of skills and competencies that an individual in this field should possess.

The idea behind this exercise was to ensure that skilled and competent individuals were placed in positions.

This it was felt was one method of improving the public service.
72 (xxv) Advertisement Advertisements are prepared by the Service Commissions Department with a closing date for receipt of applications of approximately three (3) months.

However, if the matter has to be dealt with expeditiously, two (2) weeks closing date is stated.

The Commission took a decision that if over one hundred (100) applications are received, an examination for applicants would normally be set.

Examinations are undertaken by the examination board within the Service Commission Department.
These examinations are held throughout Trinidad and Tobago.

Subsequently a shortlist is created.

There is a set of examiners on file who are rotated from time to time.

(xxvi) Succession Planning The Officials conveyed that succession planning and contract employment are functions of the employer.

The Commission cannot deal with succession planning, it can only assist with the process.

The employer has recourse to contract when it considers it appropriate for a number of reasons.
It is the employer who determines terms and conditions, job requirements and undertakes job evaluation.

The Chief Personnel Officer is accountable to the Minister of Public Administration.

(xxvii) One-Man Tribunals The Committee conveyed that persons presiding over tribunals may need specialized training and may be better suited for particular public officers because of their work experience.
(xxviii) Judicial Reviews Officials conveyed that existing judicial reviews have stymied the work of the PSC in the areas of training, development, preparation and placement of public officers.

For the past six (6) years litigation issues arose because of a challenge by unsuccessful officers to the utilization of the assessment centre methodology by the Commission.

This exercise was intended to assist with evaluation for the office of Deputy Permanent Secretary.
(xxix) Strategic Goal – Reduce timeframe for Recruitment and Selection The present process for recruitment and selection includes placement of advertisement, reception of applications, screening of applications, panel selection, interviews and selection of candidate.

It is however, difficult to get officers from various Ministries to function on Interview Panels 73 because these officers are only available at certain times.

This results in a delay of the interview process.


Cabinet has recently approved funds for the Commission to remove that barrier.

Standing Panels composed of persons drawn not necessarily from Ministries but those persons with knowledge of the public service outside of Ministries would now be utilized.

These panels would operate on a continuous basis during the year and will be mandated to consider legitimate applications only.

This system will expedite the process of interviews and appointments.
(xxx) Tobago In 2009 an Office of the Service Commission Department was established in Tobago to meet the needs of public officers in Tobago.

The Director of Personnel Administration has been mandated by the Commission to visit Tobago twice per month.

It serves as a drop-off location for applications and is not only used by the Public Service Commission but by all other Commissions including the Teaching Service Commission and the Police Service Commission.
RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee proposes the following recommendations with respect to the Public 6.4 Service Commission: (i) (ii) The supervisory role of permanent secretaries should be expanded to total management Performance appraisal of Permanent Secretaries should fall under the remit of the Public Service Commission.

(iii) A review of the structure of the Public Service Commission should be undertaken.
REQUESTED INFORMATION The officials of the Public Service Commission gave an undertaking to furnish the 6.5 Committee with the following as requested: (a) Feedback with respect to the coordinating mechanisms required.

(b) Feedback on regulatory support needed.


74 ADJOURNMENT 7.1 There being no other business, the Chairman summed the deliberations in his closing remarks, thanked the Officials of the PSC for attending the meeting and adjourned the meeting to Friday May 27, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.. 7.2 The adjournment was taken at 12:02 p.m.

I certify that the Minutes are true and correct.

Sgd.

Chairman Sgd.
Sgd.

Chairman Sgd.

Secretary April 29, 2011 75 MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM #2 AND PARLIAMENT CHAMBER, THE RED HOUSE, ABERCROMBY STREET, PORT OF SPAIN ON FRIDAY, MAY 27, 2011 AT 9:30 A.M.
Present were: Mr. Subhas Ramkhelawan Mr. Elton Prescott, S.C. Mrs. Joanne Thomas Mr. David Abdulah Mr. Chandresh Sharma Mrs. Therese Baptiste-Cornelis Ms. Shamfa Cudjoe Mrs. Vernella Alleyne-Toppin Mr. Rodger Samuel Mr. Prakash Ramadhar Mrs. Jacqueline Phillip Stoute Ms. Candice Skerrette Ms. Candice Williams Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Secretary Assistant Secretary Graduate Research Assistant The following Officials from Statutory Authorities’ Service Commission (SASC) were also available: Mr. Valentine Steve Alvarez Mrs. Sharmilla Nisha Harry Mr. Jagdeo Maharaj Mr. Darrell Allahar Mr. Ragbir Umraw Ms. Prabhawatie Maraj Absent/Excused were: Brig.
John Sandy Ms. Marlene McDonald Chairman Deputy Chairman Member Member Member Executive Officer Member (excused) Member (excused) DISCUSSIONS WITH OFFICIALS OF THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES’ SERVICE COMMISSION (SASC) 1.1 The Chairman called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m.

The Chairman welcomed officials of the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission 1.2 (SASC).

Introductions were exchanged.


On the directive of the Committee, the Chairman of the SASC made opening remarks with 1.3 respect to the work of the Commission.

76 The issues raised by Members of the Committee and responses given by Officials of the 1.4 Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission during discussions are detailed hereunder: (a) Relevance of the Commission The officials conveyed that the Commission is relevant to the authorities to which it provides a service.
The Commission has however decided to carry out field visits to all of the authorities under its purview in order to accurately understand its relevance and provide feedback in the shortest possible time.

(b) High Court Action The issue being considered by the High Court is whether the Commission can adjust its Regulations to raise the minimum standard of qualifications for entry into the Municipal Police Service.
This responsibility of job classification, is under the purview of the Chief Personnel Officer.

The Committee was told that the current High Court action has not affected the operations of the Commission.

However, because of apparent ambiguity between the Municipal Corporations Act, which states that the Commission can set its own regulations, and the Public Service Act clarification is required.
An example of ambiguity can be seen in the amendment of the Police Service Act where the qualifications for entry into the Police Service were revised to five (5) O‘ Levels, while in the Municipal Corporations Act, Chap 25:04 it is stated as three (3) O‘ Levels.

It is at the discretion of the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) to change job classification.

Given that the SASC is a parallel organization to the Service Commission, the law allows the application of the Service Commission regulations.
Further, there is need for legislative adjustments to Section 60 of the Municipal Corporations Act, Chapter 25:04 due to inconsistencies with respect to the substantive powers granted to the Commission.

(c) Strategic Plan From the time of their assumption of duty the Commissioners recognized that the position of Human Resource Officer did not exist.

They felt that the situation had to be addressed.


The Commission plans to complete the review of the 2009-2013 strategic plan by December 16, 2011 to bring it into alignment with the objectives of the government as well as the impact of local government reform.

During discussion with the Executive Officer, the Commissioners recognized that there is a structure that must be followed.

In light of this, a public management consultant is needed for guidance.
Proper evaluation and description of jobs are required.

77 Proper evaluation of the internal and external environments is necessary for stakeholder buy-in and for transformation to take place.

The reason for this exercise is to uncover the importance of the services of the Commission to stakeholders and the country.

The deadline for the completion of this exercise is November.
(d) Service Reform The Committee was informed that when the previous executive embarked on local government reform, it would directly impact the operations of the SASC.

Presently, the SASC is looking at the executive‘s vision.

To this end, the Commission has commenced an exercise of mapping its internal processes.

(e) Municipal Police With respect to the recruitment process, an advertisement is published and the selection process is carried out.
Subsequent to selection, the individuals are trained for six months at the Police Academy.

The Commission has tried to make its process as efficient as possible.

Since its appointment the Commission has met every Tuesday to deal with pertinent matters.

Members were informed that SASC only deals with recruitment and selection under their purview, whereas training is the responsibility of the Police Academy.

(f) Acting Appointments Acting appointments are of tremendous concern to the Commission.
Within the SASC there are members of staff who have been acting for more than seven years.

It is believed that there are persons who have been employed for over seven years in temporary positions.

This issue is seen throughout the public service and can cause employees to become de- motivated.

It was indicated that this situation could only be addressed holistically.
Officials indicated that acting positions are created at a higher level due to individuals being on vacation leave, suspension or pre-retirement leave.

Persons act in positions for long periods.

Acting appointments have now become endemic within the structure of the public service.

The solution to which is not simple.

Officials indicated that there is a need for public sector reform.
(g) Staffing It was stated that in the past requests/proposals with respect to staffing were sent to the Ministry of Public Administration.

The process has recently been re-started and is therefore now in the consulting phase.

Presently, the division is undertaking an analysis of the organization.

Upon completion a report will be submitted to the Cabinet.

However, existing staff have been working well despite limited capacity.

The timeline for completion of the exercise is one (1) year.
78 (h) Basis of Promotion Officials pointed out that each body is discrete and autonomous as there is no unified statutory service.

This in itself creates limitations for SASC.

Thus, promotions are limited to officers within the body they serve.

However, positions may be advertised for technical and professional positions in order to create a pool of applicants.

In addition, officers may be seconded from larger corporations to other corporations.
Where there is a shortfall, authorities are asked to indicate whether members of staff are interested in being seconded.

In such cases, the term ―acting‖ is replaced by ―seconded‖.

Individuals do not move across Corporations to act, but they are seconded to a higher position.

Vacancies for heads of statutory authorities are filled by the recommendation of the Permanent Secretary of the line ministry or via advertisement.
(i) Performance appraisal and succession planning Whenever the SASC is requested to make appointments or promotions, the Boards are required to furnish the SASC with performance appraisals report.

The SASC is not involved in the evaluation process.

Performance appraisals are used as a tool to fulfill legal obligations to promote.

The candidate is evaluated based on terms and conditions, performance and experience.
(j) Salaries and Compensation Members were informed that salaries and compensation are handled by the Chief Personnel Officer as this function is outside the SASC‘s purview.

(k) Administration Training and development are conducted by the authorities.

When a decision for training is taken, an update on the status of the individual is requested.

The SASC undertakes the evaluation process but it is not initiated by the SASC.
(l) Board Appointment Members were informed that the SASC Board was appointed on March 14, 2011.

Since its appointment the Board has held eight (8) meetings.

It was stated that the Board can only appoint persons where a vacancy exists within the SASC.

However is responsible for Secretariat appointments.

the Public Service Commission (m) Remuneration Members were informed that remuneration is identical for staff under the SASC and other Service Commissions, only job classifications differ.
79 (n) Applications Outstanding applications on record as at September 30, 2010 referred to in the 2009/2010 Annual Report, list persons awaiting employment since 2004 to 2010.

The Committee conveyed that many of these persons may not be available in 2011.

Officials indicated that they are conducting a Merit List exercise from 2004/05 to present in order to upgrade lists.

The Commission intends to make application forms available on its website.
REQUESTED INFORMATION The officials of the SASC gave an undertaking to furnish the Committee with the 2.1 following.

(i) Feedback on how relevant the SASC is presently, subsequent to field visits to authorities.

A copy of the re-worked strategic plan upon completion in November 2011.
(ii) (iii) A written report on the Municipal Police Officers with particular focus on:  capacity employed  maximum strength  status SUSPENSION/RESUMPTION The meeting was suspended at 11:37 a.m. and resumed in Committee Room 2 at 11:45 3.1 a.m.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES There being no amendments, the Minutes of the Sixth Meeting held on April 29, 2011 4.1 were confirmed by Mr. Prescott S.C. and seconded by Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis.
MATTER ARISING FROM MINUTES The Secretary was directed to circulate a notice of the next meeting of the Committee as 5.1 soon as possible as well as any information received from the Police Service Commission.

OTHER MATTERS 6.1 The Chairman indicated that correspondence had been received from the Public Service Commission (PSC) raising concerns that questions directed by Members were outside of the PSC remit as well as the tone of questions.

The Chairman indicated he will respond likewise.


NEXT MEETING The Committee agreed to a follow-up meeting with officials of the Police Service 7.1 Commission on Tuesday June 14, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. 80 ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting to Tuesday June 14, 8.1 2011 at 9:00 a.m. 8.2 The adjournment was taken at 12:01 p.m.

I certify that the Minutes are true and correct.

Sgd.

Chairman Sgd.
Sgd.

Chairman Sgd.

Secretary May 27, 2011 81 MINUTES OF THE EIGHTH MEETING HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM #2 AND PARLIAMENT CHAMBER, THE RED HOUSE, ABERCROMBY STREET, PORT OF SPAIN ON TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 AT 9:30 A.M.

Present were: Mr. Subhas Ramkhelawan Mr. Elton Prescott, S.C. Mrs. Joanne Thomas Mr. David Abdulah Mrs. Therese Baptiste-Cornelis Ms. Shamfa Cudjoe Mrs. Vernella Alleyne-Toppin Mr. Rodger Samuel Brig.
John Sandy Mrs. Jacqueline Phillip Stoute Ms. Candice Skerrette Ms. Indira Binda - - - - - - - - - - - - Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Secretary Assistant Secretary Graduate Research Assistant The following Officials from Police Service Commission (PSC) were also available: Professor Ramesh Deosaran Mrs. Gloria Edwards-Joseph Ms. Jacqueline Cheesman Mr. Kenneth Parker Mr. Addison Khan Dr. Kerry Sumersar-Rai Mr. Alfred Gray Ms. Satie Maniram Mr. Anthony Samuel Ms. Ann Marie Andrews Ms. Anoushka Ramsaran Ms. Kavita Jodhan Absent/Excused were: Mr. Prakash Ramadhar Ms. Marlene McDonald Mr. Chandresh Sharma INTRODUCTION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chairman Director of Personnel Administration Member Member Commissioner Dir.
Monitoring, Evaluation & Education Ass.

Dir.

Research & Evaluation Ass.

Dir.

Audit Ass.

Dir.

Public Education Sen. Human Resource Adviser (Ag.)
Legal Adviser Legal Adviser Member (excused) Member (excused) Member 1.1 The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. 82 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES There being no amendments, the Minutes of the Seventh Meeting held on May 27, 2011 2.1 were confirmed by Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis and seconded by Mr. Elton Prescott S.C. MATTER ARISING FROM MINUTES 3.1 The Committee was informed that a letter requesting the submission of responses with respect to the under-mentioned areas was forwarded to the Chairman of the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission by the Secretary to the Committee: (iv) Feedback on the relevance of the SASC presently, subsequent to field visits to authorities.
A copy of the re-worked strategic plan upon completion in November 2011.
(v) (vi) A written report on the Municipal Police Officers with particular focus on:  capacity employed  maximum strength  status PRE-HEARING DISCUSSIONS During the pre-hearing discussion, Members agreed to raise the following areas of concern 4.1 with the PSC:  Status and update on issues discussed at a previous meeting of the Committee regarding: accommodation, human resources, the Public Service Appeal Board and the disciplinary tribunal with the police service;  Evaluation and monitoring of the police service;  Whether the Commission is satisfied with the system of promotion used by the Commissioner;  Establishment of new PSC Regulations;  Linkage between PSC and Municipal Police.
The Chairman drew Members‘ attention to a document dated July 20, 2009 which gave in 4.2 detail how the Police Service Commission intends to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
OTHER MATTERS 5.1 With respect to the issue of the Committee Service Allowance, the Chairman indicated that the Service Allowance in the sum of $1,000.00 is transferred to the bank account of all Members of the Committee who are not Ministers on a monthly basis.

It was further pointed out that the allowance is not correlated to attendance.

NEXT MEETING The Committee agreed that its next meeting will be held on a date to be fixed in the 6.1 Second Session of the Tenth Parliament.
83 SUSPENSION/RESUMPTION 7.1 The meeting was suspended at 9:45 a.m.

DISCUSSIONS WITH OFFICIALS OF THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC) 8.1 The meeting resumed in Chamber at 10:00 a.m.

The Chairman welcomed officials of the Police Service Commission (PSC).

Introductions 8.2 were exchanged.

8.3 The Chairman summarized the issues raised at a meeting with PSC held on March 25, 2011.
He listed accommodation, the filling of PSC Secretariat vacancies, legislative and regulatory adjustments, the procedures for appointments, the medium term strategic plan and the composition of the appeals tribunal as the pertinent areas that required clarification.

Brig.

John Sandy stated that there may be an area of overlap because of his portfolio, 8.4 nevertheless he reserved the right to question the Commission.
On the request of the Committee, the Chairman of the PSC while making introductory 8.5 remarks proffered the following update regarding issues raised during a previous meeting:  Accommodation for the Commission: PSC expects to be relocated within three (3) months;  Filling of vacancies in the PSC Secretariat: PSC and the Director of Personnel Administration (DPA) are working toward the renewal of contracts or re-advertising positions in order to filling vacancies and stabilize the Secretariat;  Legislative and regulatory reform: in order to have proper Regulations drafted, the PSC recently held a meeting with a Consultant.
The Commission will now meet with the relevant agencies to concretize the direction in which to take with respect to this matter;  Status of the Medium Term Strategic Plan of the PSC: In 2009 the PSC together with the secretariat drafted a strategic plan for the period 2009 to 2011, some aspects of which have been implemented.

With the appointment of the new Commission, drafting of a new master plan commenced approximately two (2) months ago.
This plan will focus on thematic areas such as monitoring and evaluation of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS), human resources, public communication as it relates to the PSC, organizational reform and legislative reform.

The plan will be completed in one (1) months‘ time.
 The Appeals Tribunal: to date thirteen (13) appeals have been filed, hearing of six (6) appeals have been completed, three (3) written judgments have been delivered and three (3) judgments are due on 28 June 2011; 84  Resources: PSC has been provided with a courtroom for use by the Appeals Tribunal, computers will be provided by the DPA who will also appoint support staff for the Tribunal.

 Commissioner of Police (CoP): the CoP is required to submit periodic reports in writing to the PSC.
The issues raised by Members of the Committee and responses given by Officials of the 8.6 Police Service Commission during discussions are detailed hereunder: (i) Appeals Tribunal Members were informed that there are two (2) attorneys at law on the Tribunal, namely: Mr. Martin George and Mr. Addison Khan.

There was concensus that in order to properly hear appeals and reduce the number of appeals pending, that the members of the Tribunal should be full time and must be competent in areas specified by law.
It was advised that this would require amending the Constitution.

There is an increase in complaints from the Association and individual officers.

Further, grievances about discipline have also increased.

These issues are being handled by the Tribunal.

Once the tribunal set up by the Police Service hears and determines the appeal, then the police officer may come directly to the Appeals Tribunal and file an appeal.
An appeal must be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date on which the decision of the Tribunal was received.

In the case of promotional appeals, an officer has the right to request that the Commissioner review same.

Subsequent to the review, if he is still dissatisfied, then he may file an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal.

In 2010, five (5) appeals were filed; from 2010 to present eight (8) more appeals have been filed.
(ii) Recruitment and Promotion Since there are issues of delay and perceived unfairness with respect to promotion in the Police Service, the PSC plans to meet with the CoP to have discussions regarding the extensive process for promotions and increasing grievances.

Members were informed that the PSC has assigned an officer to examine the recruitment and promotion systems and practices of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service for the last three (3) years.
(iii) Performance of CoP and Deputy CoP The Committee was informed that the CoP is required to provide, in writing, periodic reports for the PSC‘s attention every six (6) months.

The Commission is subsequently required to produce an annual report on the CoP‘s performance.

85 This is the first full scale constitutionally defined evaluation of a Police Commissioner and his deputies that is being undertaken.

An instrument setting the objectives of the evaluation is being prepared.
A sub-committee has been appointed to consider the whole process of evaluation of the police service as part of the effectiveness of the police commissioner and his executive.

The appraisal of the Commissioner of Police is not purely subjective.

It is also based on objective, empirical evidence that has to be collected from the police service itself, as well as the opinions and views of stakeholders.
Procedure:    ‗Collect, review and analyse data with respect to complaints (public and police officers) and the actions taken by the Commissioner of Police in response to the action taken by the Deputy Commissioners of Police and the final outcome‘ ‗Visits to targeted police stations, conduct interviews with police officers, review and analyse feedback provided by police officers to inform a summary of findings‘ and ‗Collect, review and analyse opinion surveys and public feedback from the media, documented complaints (general public and civil society), focused research from creditable institutions, members of Parliament, Commissioners and security based organizations (including the Police Complaints the Police Asssociations, Authority, the Ministry of National Security and the National Security Council‘ Further, the Constitutional monitoring mechanism are subdivided into ‗process evaluation‘ which is ongoing evaluations and ‗impact evaluations‘ which are dependent on the provision of certain documents from the CoP to carry out its functions.
Monitoring of the CoP will include the use of surveys, media and stakeholders.

In 2009 several stakeholder meetings were held and three (3) were held in Tobago.

Stakeholder meetings are done on a smaller scale due to resource limitations.

The Evaluation Unit uses monitoring parameters continuously.

Additionally, ‗weights‘ will be attached to each parameter to examine the issues from the public, directives given by the CoP and management of crime.

This data will be used to conduct appraisals.


The Police Complaints Authority was named as a key stakeholder for this monitoring process.

It was confirmed that the assessment of the CoP will be completed by September 2011.

This detailed process for evaluating and monitoring of the CoP will include the new mandate of CoP and the TTPS Strategic Plan.
(iv) Communication PSC officials indicated that the Commission is obligated to keep the public informed because of the scope and depth of its work when compared to other Service Commissions.

Thus, the PSC is attempting to develop a regular newsletter and hold frequent press conferences.

86 At present, the PSC is attempting to develop a website independent of the general website of all the other service commissions.

The website will also serve as a mechanism for receiving public feedback.
Although feedback from across the police service has been positive, there are future plans to introduce a system of accessibility.

(v) Surveys Officials indicated that the survey methodology of the PSC requires improvement.

Nation-wide representative scientific surveys are therefore essential.

(vi) White-collar Crime Officials admitted that in order to tackle and investigate white-collar crime the Police Service must be adequately resourced.
At present, one (1) unit is given the responsibility for several cases that are being considered simultaneously.

An expanded unit, staffed with the expertise required to deal with white collar crime is of paramount importance to the Police Service.

(vii) Regulations Members were informed that under Section 129 of the Constitution, the PSC is allowed to make its own Regulations with the consent of the Prime Minister.
(viii) Secretariat The Committee was informed that since the first meeting with the Commission, interview panels have been set up to address the problem of outstanding vacancies.

It was further stated that the Secretariat has a fifty percent (50%) vacancy rate which is affecting the performance of the Commission.
Officials indicated they would like to play a role in the recruitment process because of experience and understanding of the mandate and to ensure that the required expertise of the Secretariat is realized.

Additionally, Cabinet recently approved temporary positions of Management Officer and the Research Human Resource Advisor.

Cabinet has also agreed that those positions can be extended for another three years.
However, officials agreed that the structure of the Secretariat is not conducive to the PSC, further administrative reform is necessary and this will be injected into the draft Regulations.

(ix) Public Sector Court Officials agreed with Members that the creation of a Public Sector Court may be required, separate from the functions of the Police Complaints Authority.
87 (x) Way Forward Officials stated the draft strategic plan of the Commission ‗Charting the way forward to 2015‘ consists of its constitutional mandate, governance concepts and issues to achieve its mandate.

It is expected to be completed at the end of July 2011.

REQUESTED INFORMATION 9.1 The Committee requested a copy of the strategic plan upon its completion.

ADJOURNMENT 10.1 The meeting was adjourned to a date to fixed in the new session.

10.2 The adjournment was taken at 12:03 p.m.


I certify that the Minutes are true and correct.

Sgd.

Chairman Sgd.
Secretary June 14, 2011 88 THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO AND REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND SERVICE COMMISSIONS WITH THE EXCEPTIONOF THE JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION Appendix 4 Verbatim Notes of Proceedings 89 90 VERBATIM NOTES OF FOURTH MEETING OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO CONSIDER AND REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND SERVICE COMMISSIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION, HELD IN THE CHAMBER, RED HOUSE, PORT OF SPAIN, ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2011, AT 10.00 A.M. Ms. Hyacinth Guy Dr. Anna Mahase Mr. Zaffar Ali Mr. Oliver Flax Prof. Ramesh Deosaran Ms. Yvette Phillip TEACHING SERVICE COMMISSION OFFICIALS Chairman Member Member Member Member Executive Director, HRM Mr. Prakash Ramadhar Mrs. Therese Baptiste-Cornelis Miss Shamfa Cudjoe Mrs. Vernella Alleyne-Toppin Brig.
John Sandy Ms. Marlene McDonald ABSENT Member Member Member Member Member Member Mr. Chairman: Good Morning, Ladies and Gentlemen.

I call this meeting to order and, I again, welcome the members of the Teaching Service Commission and of course the members of this Joint Select Committee.

Let me start by making a few introductory remarks and then I will ask for some introductions of your team, The Service Commission Team, and we will introduce on our side the members of this Joint Select Committee.
This Joint Select Committee is appointed to enquire into and report to Parliament on Municipal Corporations and Service Commissions with the exception of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission.

We have chosen to start with the Teaching Service Commission.

Our role today is mainly to get some sort of familiarization with the work that is being done and is planned by the Teaching Service Commission, in order to fulfill its mandate.
We have asked you, The Teaching Service 91 Commission, to provide us with certain information as the starting point for our deliberations and that would have included a review of the administrative management from 2008 to 2010.

A status report on the objectives and goals of the commission, a medium term strategic plan, basically to find out when that will be ready, if it is in place and when we can have sight of that document and what could be the components of that document.
Plan the areas of implementation to 2015, which will be coterminous with the term of this committee provided that the term of Parliament runs to that time.

Finally, the legislative and regulatory adjustments that the commission considers would be useful in enhancing its effectiveness and the better performance of its duties.

So let me start by asking you through your chairman if possible or directly, to introduce the members of the Teaching Service Commission.

Ms.

Guy: Thank you Mr. Ramkhelawan.


It is a pleasure to be here and the members of the Teaching Service Commission are happy to be here to update you and what we have been doing over the past few years.

Let me introduce you to the members of the Commission.

[Introductions] Mr. Chairman: Let me start with the members of our committee who are here today.
[Introductions] Mr. Chairman: Now that we have got our introductions out of the way, let us get right into the heart of the matter for which the commission has been invited, so may I turn now to you Ms.

Guy to give us some briefing on the work of the Commission and its future agenda?

Ms.
Ms.

Guy: The work of the Commission and its future agenda—well let me start with where we are today and then I could reflect on the last couple of years and the work that we have done and then we could talk about a bit about what our plans are for the future.

As I talk—and I know you asked for it to be brief—I may call on some of the other members to give some more specific information on areas that they are also very familiar with.
First of all, the Teaching Service Commission, our mandate is stated in Section 125 of the Constitution and that says in summary, to appoint persons to hold or act in public offices in the teaching service established under the Education Act and to remove and exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices and to enforce standards of conduct on such officers and that shall be vested in the Teaching Service Commission, so that is our mandate really.
If I look at where we are today in terms of this mandate and I take it from the perspective of appointments, we are at a situation today in the Teaching Service Commission where in 92 February 2011, today, we are at the point where we are making appointments to vacant positions that arose in the teaching service towards the latter part of 2010 and we are planning to interview for vacant positions that will arise in 2011, and those interviews would be done in the first quarter before the end of March this year.
Part of the plan that we had was to make all our appointments current and when we do that we will establish an Order of Merit list and as those vacancies arise, people will be placed into those positions.

So from the perspective of appointments, we can say that appointments are very current.

As a vacancy arises in the school, we are in a position to make an appointment.

I would say within the longest time—three months.


With respect to the other aspect of our functioning which is to exercise disciplinary control and to enforce standards of conduct, we, today, I would say, are at a position where we are aware of the issues that are happening in various schools with respect to teacher indiscipline and we have been working with the Ministry of Education to understand what is happening and to put systems in place to enforce those standards of conduct.
Today we are in a situation where when something happens, we know, and that was not always that way.

We have put things in place to ensure that we are aware and what happens after that is that investigations are conducted and reports are submitted to the Teaching Service Commission and the Teaching Service Commission proceeds in accordance with the various parts of the Public Service Regulations.

These regulations are the regulations that are adopted by the Teaching Service Commission.
So with respect to discipline, we can say that we have made some inroads into enforcing standards of conduct, we do have challenges there in that we have to continue to work with the Ministry of Education to get matters investigated at a faster pace so that they come to the Teaching Service Commission at a much faster rate and we can deal with them.

So that is an area of challenge that we have.

So in summary, in terms of appointments and discipline, that is where we are today.
Mr. Chairman: In your submission and I will open it up to the members.

In your submission, you raised a concern, the delays, inordinate delays in the submission of reports by investigating officers, well beyond the stipulated time period of 30 days and in some cases running as far as one year before that report could come before you.

I certainly would like to hear from you what are the initiatives and what are your recommendations to shorten the period of time that the report comes to you.

Ms.
Ms.

Guy: We are working within the existing regulations and while we are working within the 93 existing regulations it means that we have to work with the officials at the Ministry of Education so that we get that cooperation.

We have had several meetings with the officials at the Ministry of Education.
An investigating officer is assigned by the ministry to investigate any matter that happens and any allegations of misconduct, anything that happens in the school and when we meet with the ministry, they also have their challenges in that they have to meet with—they have to get to talk to witnesses, people have to give reports and so on, so you get that kind of feedback coming in but within that organizational structure there are probably some opportunities for enhancing that structure, putting more resources into that industrial relations unit at the ministries so that they could be more in touch with the districts, so that the supervisors who are the investigating officers for the most part, are encouraged to report on a more timely basis.
So as long as we are working within the existing regulations, we have to work together with the ministry and encourage them and persuade them and remind them on a regular basis to get those reports to us.
One of the issues that we have on our agenda is to develop our own regulations because the regulations that we have are regulations that have been adopted from the public service regulations and certainly part of those revisions, we would make other recommendations as to how investigations could be conducted.
As it is now, they are conducted by the ministry but there could be other ways that investigations could be conducted; could be an investigative unit under the Service Commission that we assign someone to go and investigate and send us a report and so on, so that we have more control over it.

But as it is now when you are working and you are crossing boundaries and you go over into another organization then you really have to develop more corporative strategies to get the end results.

Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Is it that these investigating officers—they are part-time assigned to the work of investigation?

Ms.

Guy: No, no, they are fulltime.

They are supervisors.

Mr. Chairman: So, they are supervisors but they would be assigned to certain investigations.

Ms.

Guy: That is right.

They are from time to time.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Are they trained to conduct investigations of this nature?

Ms.
Ms.

Guy: Well that is something that the officials at the Ministry of Education raised, they indicated that sometimes even when the report comes in on time that the report have to be reviewed and revised because they need more information and that again was an area, a developmental area that they saw as being needed in the ministry that the investigating officers 94 needed to have some training as to what was required when they get out into the field and they started to do these investigations.
So it is something that I know that the ministry is looking at.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Sharma?

Mr. Sharma: Thank you very much, Chairman.

Let me join in the welcome to all of you and to tell you I have the good fortune or the opposite of it of having been on this committee before under the very distinguished chairmanship of the even more distinguished, Prof. Ramesh Deosaran.
One of the things I want to make sure is that when I sit here we spend our time achieving what we are intended to do based on the constitution and based on our appointment here, and I mean we plural, meaning both of us: The Teaching Service Commission and Members on this side.

For too long, you have heard the same story over and over and over and that is not a bad thing.

It is only bad when we do nothing about it and I want to make a few recommendations.
I want to make sure that the recommendations, if agreed to, are followed up.

The first one I want to make is that the national community need to be told how teachers are employed, what are the criteria and it must be published in the newspapers and a couple press conferences jointly or with yourselves signaling to the national community how teachers are engaged.
Secondly, we need to tell the national community what is the possible intake of teachers per subject area in any given year, because that statistics must be available to you.

Do you know how many maths teachers do you need?

Do you know how many other teachers do you need?

Thirdly, when we are assigning teachers, let us be kind to the children that they are going to teach.
For instance, you are not doing too well when you assign a teacher living in the constituency of Fyzabad, in Mayaro, because the distance is lost and there may be other opportunities.

As regards to vacancies in schools, why is it so long to fill those vacancies?

Are you aware that those vacancies exist?

What is the format?

How does a principal communicate with you and what is the follow up from your side?
So a principal says to you, ―I need four teachers‖, why does it take a year, a year and half or two years?

Why can it not be in a shorter period of time?

Why the appointments of Principals and Heads of Departments, deans I suspect that you call them, have to be a secret, as if it is a secret order?

Let the criteria be known and let the process be known as well, and let there be fair play.

Oftentimes that does not obtain for whatever reason.
You, meaning in the Teaching 95 Service Commission must tell the national committee to be appointed a principal or a Vice Principal these are the following; and, of course, we must know it ourselves and agree if this is it.

So that these matters that I have raised do not require in-depth research, does not require a huge budget of any kind, it requires simply willpower to do.

I want to suggest we start doing something.


I get the feeling, I am sure you would have captured in the news last night and this morning in the newspapers, that the south campus of the University of the West Indies is to be established in south Trinidad somewhere, and the area that it is going to cover is 38 secondary schools; make sure as we prepare to have those children enter the University that there are no vacancies in those schools to start with.

We must show goodwill.


We must become excited about the developments in the country and your Commission needs to become known to the national community.

Of course, on their behalf I want to thank you for offering yourself to serve.

I know it is a tireless exercise.

But you sit where you sit because you have a duty and it is a privilege as well.

So, do not make the errors of the past commissions whatever they might have been.

Do not blame it on shortage of any kind.


I think within a short period of maybe six weeks almost every vacancy that exists in the school can be attended to.

Mr. Chairman: Okay— Mr. Sharma: You have the manpower?

You have those who meet the entry requirements, and I would really want to see more action and less talk.

You have my hundred per cent support.

Mr. Chairman: Can we have a comment from Mr. Samuel?
Mr. Samuel: Mr. Chairman, the Chairman of the Commission has spoken a bit about discipline and I wanted to stay right there a bit because I recognize as I read the 2007 report, 2008 and 2009 reports that there are situations that keep shifting from one year to the next, one year to the next.

From the 2009 report you said that there were 83 disciplinary cases, some from the previous year.

What is the present here from the previous years?

It means that something is going wrong.


If investigations were supposed to have been done and submitted within a period of time, something is causing it not to flow as freely as it should.

And how do we get past this and make sure that we make it current.

I am not too sure what is the present status based on your 2010 assessment of it.
Where do we go from here because oftentimes I am reading, it takes so long and people retire, people drop out—quite a number of things happen—and they escape the process through retirement.

What are the recommendations; what recommendations do you have, to bring the 96 system up and make it as effective as it ought to be, and not have these loopholes in the system?

Ms. H. Guy: First, let me update on where we are insofar as the disciplinary issues are concerned.
At present—and this is at February 2011—we have 49 cases before the Commission for alleged offences one way or the other.

Of these, 24 are for abandonment of office.

That is not so much an offence as much as it just requires us to take action to take these people off the database, off the system, in a formal way so that the vacancies could be filled.
Again, you know there is an administrative process there and it means again we have to work with the Ministry to get information from the Ministry so that we could effect that.

There are seven of those 49 cases that are cases before the courts and where a teacher has been charged for one issue or the other and we have to await the outcome of those cases.
And then there are 22 of them that are for misconduct, and those are the ones that we really pay a lot of attention to—the misconduct—because those have to be tracked; those have to be followed.

So that if it has to be the teacher is brought before the tribunal and the matter is heard.

When you look at the cases of misconduct, many of these are what I spoke about: the investigating officer is doing the investigation.
And a report is to come to the Teaching Service Commission which recommends certain charges and the Teaching Service Commission will proffer those charges and the teacher will go before a tribunal and the process is followed.

So it is those 22 cases that we are really paying active attention to and trying to follow through the process and work with the Ministry to make it come through the system as quickly as possible.
Mr. Samuel: Mr. Chairman, if you would permit me, I have recognized that there are quite a number of cases of abandonment— Ms. H. Guy: Yes.

Mr. Samuel: —that seems to be prevalent now in the system.

Ms. H. Guy: 24.

Mr. Samuel: Do you have any, can you give reasons why you feel there is such a high number of abandonment and two at what point do these people or are these people removed from the payroll.

Those are the questions I would like to ask.


If you abandon and it takes five years to find out that you abandoned you are still getting paid.

Ms. H. Guy: No, no, no.

Mr. Samuel: So at what point are they removed from the payroll?

Ms. H. Guy: Luckily they are not getting paid.


Well, when you think that there are 16,000 97 primary and secondary school teachers and we have 24 cases of abandonment, it probably does not begin to look so significant but you know whatever the number we have to deal with it because if you do not address it those are 24 positions that are not filled and we have to take it through the administrative process for these people to come off the system and for the positions to be filled.
As to why, when you look at the profile it sometimes is people who come into the profession and they come in and they are on a temporary basis or they get early confirmation and maybe earlier on they decided that this is not for them and they get on to do something else, go away to study, take up a degree and they just do not report again at the next semester.

And the regulations say that, if you do not report for 30 days, a period of 30 days then you could be deemed to have abandoned your post.
When that happens then there is an administrative process that the Ministry must do and then it comes to the Teaching Service Commission and we complete the process and takes you off the system.

So again, invariably it means that we have to work with the Ministry to get all the information so that we can take the persons off the system.
That has been, you know, better administered over the last three or four months and information has been coming to us, and we have been working with the Ministry and that is being sped up.

But 24 cases yes, while we would not like to see this happen at all it is not as significant when you think it is 16,000 teachers that we have.

Mr. Samuel: That significant.

With the number of vacancies and you are trying to fill the positions rapidly, with abandonment it makes your task even more tedious?
Ms. H. Guy: A little more challenging, yes, I agree.

Mrs. J. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning to the members.

I just want to say welcome and thank you for agreeing to come to this session with us.

Moving along that same line of discipline, I note one of your challenges was the absence of information from the Ministry as regards officers who are persistently absent and unpunctual.

In 2011 has there been any improvement or is there my plan in gear to get information on these officers?
Ms. H. Guy: Information on irregularity and punctuality, that information goes from the schools directly to the Ministry on a regular basis, those reports go regularly.

We have access to those reports so we know that there are issues of irregularity and unpunctuality.
When that information goes do to the Ministry, I would imagine it is the CEO office out of the Ministry should really look at those reports and identify those teachers whose irregularity and unpunctuality are so high 98 they are affecting the performance of the school.

That should be brought to the attention of the Teaching Service Commission and an allegation of misconduct made.

That is when the Teaching Service Commission comes into the situation: when an allegation of misconduct is made.
In discussing this with Ministry of Education, they tell you that, yes, the reports come, but that next step is not taken.

What we have done, we have issued a policy position to the Ministry and we have said in cases of certain infractions, it must be brought to our attention immediately.

We did that in 2007 and these infractions were allegations of abuse.
If it is violence or if it is in something, anything involving the safety of a child, you bring that to our attention immediately and we decide whether disciplinary procedures should be initiated.

In 2009, we revised those procedures to include anything which affects the stability or the performance of the school and we gave some examples.

We said insubordination, irregularity, unpunctuality, neglect of duty, that the Ministry should bring those to our attention.
We have revised that policy and we had sent it to our legal people, and they had given the okay and we had sent it to the Ministry of Education for comment before we send it out and we have indicated that we will be promulgating that revised policy by the end of March this year, this quarter.
We are just giving them enough time to know that this is coming and that they should put some systems in place because once that goes, then they have to find some way to get that information to us so that we can act on it.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Abdulah.

Mr. Abdulah: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and through the Chair if I could, ask the members of the Commission and also welcome them.
These are two issues I wanted to raise; one is a follow up to the question raised by Mrs. Thomas a while ago and that is, the process of reporting irregular attendance.

Is it from the Principal to the School Supervisor for the area and the School Supervisor—?

Ms. H. Guy: Yes, via standard reports.

Mr. Adbulah: To the School Supervisor.

Ms. H. Guy: The Principal to the School Supervisor and then to the Ministry.

Mr. Abdulah: Right.
Mr. Abdulah: Right.

You mentioned, Chairman of the Commission, that it may be the office of the Chief Education Officer.

Now I am aware that some years ago maybe about four or five years ago the position of Director of Schools Supervision was removed Ms. H. Guy: It was disestablished.

99 Mr. Abdulah: Within the Ministry of Education.

Ms. H. Guy: Yes.

Mr. Abdulah: Was that a negative move in terms of the process?
In other words, the School Supervisors, my understanding is that the School Supervisors used to report to the Director of Schools Supervision.

If there was therefore retained within the Ministry of Education, the position of Director of Schools Supervision and his office with support staff that in fact that process could have been expedited because school supervision should really be dealing with those matters and not education.

Ms.
Ms.

Guy: Yes, you see, it was all part—as we understood it—of the restructuring of the Ministry of Education.

Now, it is not that it was a negative move to remove it; if you are restructuring and you are disestablishing one position—proper HR procedures would tell you that one should not disestablish one position and not immediately replace it with another.

So, it was disestablished and no replacement position came in immediately so there is a gap and there continues to be a gap even up to today.
The director of school supervision played a very important role in bringing all the districts together and consolidating efforts and policies and so on, and that is now—there is a gap there.

So the issue really is that if there was to be a replacement structure or position that should have followed up immediately.

Mr. Abdulah: That happened about four/five years ago, am I right?

Ms.

Guy: Is it as long as that?

The Ministry did it, I cannot tell you how long ago, but it was a while yes.
Mr. Abdulah: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a second question, if I may, through you.

Mr. Chairman: Sure.
Mr. Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Abdulah: The second issue I wanted to raise was, I noted from your report up to February which we received last week or earlier this week that there was a significant reduction in the number of vacancies over the last few years and you are to be commended on that, particularly in the area of vacancies of the positions of principals that moved down from 479 in 2005 to 28 vacancies at the end of 2010 and for vice-principals from 251 in 2005 to 9 vacancies at the end of 2010.
One did not see a parallel reduction in the number filling of vacancies with respect to deans, heads of departments and senior teachers.

There was a reduction, but not in the same or the magnitude, and in particular in 2010, there were not that many positions filled in that area of deans, heads of departments and senior teachers.
100 I was wondering, through you Chair, what may have accounted for that slow-down in the filling of vacancies in that particular category as distinct from principals and vice-principals.

Obviously deans, heads of departments and senior teachers play critical roles in the administrative structure of the schools.

Ms.

Guy: I think we have to look at it differently.

It is not so much a slowdown in the filling; it is the rotation, the cycle.
These positions were established in 2004 or 2005 and there are 2,132 that we had as vacant positions in 2005 and there were new positions created in the schools, so we had to move to fill all of these positions.

So, I would say that by 2007 or 2008 we had filled most of those outstanding positions in the schools in the deans, heads and senior teachers.
Where we had not filled positions it is because we probably did not get persons with the required skills and so on, that would have been about three years ago.

What you have now is another set of vacancies coming up.

People leaving the positions, people moving on into higher level positions, so you have another wave of vacancies in that group so you would see now a new set of vacancies in 2010—541—and we would be moving to fill those positions in 2011.
There are 45 that we project for 2011, and altogether 586, which in the area of deans, heads of departments and senior teachers is not a significant amount.

We can see us completing these by the middle of this year and bringing that current, but you would always find that the pool from which you would draw principals and vice-principals would come from the school.

So every so often you would have a wave of vacancies coming from the schools.

Mr. Chairman: Just to clarify what you have discussed so far.
The first question was that of absenteeism and punctuality.

Now, you said that the information would be available through the Ministry of Education, but do you have a threshold level where such absenteeism or punctuality must be reported to the commission?

Ms.

Guy: No, and that has been discussed.


We have looked at our regulations, we have consulted with the legal people and we have asked whose role is it to establish that standard of conduct insofar as absenteeism and punctuality is concerned, because it is not written anywhere, it is a vacuum and at one point we said, look, nobody is doing it let the commission step in and do it.
But we have not done so at this point, because, really, from the perspective of HR management, those are things for the employer to do, so, really and truly we feel that the Ministry of Education should be saying with respect to schools, any level of absenteeism beyond X number of days would be considered excessive and would be bought to the attention of the commission 101 and we would be satisfied with that.

Mr. Chairman: Is it something that you would be prepared to set out in your regulations?

Ms.
Ms.

Guy: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Chairman: Over what kind of time frame?

Ms.

Guy: Because there is a gap there right now.

We are reviewing our regulations at this point and if there is room for including something like that in there, certainly we would have that included.

Mr. Chairman: Would you be prepared to give us some early feedback as to what your intent on this matter is?

Ms.

Guy: Sure.
Ms.

Guy: Sure.

We have discussed it and we have had certain positions on it, we never sent anything out to the Ministry, but certainly we could do that.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, and would you be in a position to do that over the next month or over the next two months?

Ms.

Guy: Mr. Flax.

Mr. Flax: We have already developed a proposal, and as the Chairman said, we have been discussing this for a number of years with various administrations.
In the absence of any feedback from them, we have developed a proposal which we would send to them.

The speed with which we could get it implemented really depends on speed with which all stakeholders could agree, because in my view—from an HR point of view—the employer has to be involved as well as the representative association, TTUTA.
Because if we are instituting a new method of discipline, the stakeholders, necessarily, must be involved in that, but—the Chairman has asked me, because I have developed a proposal as to how this should be done and we are prepared to share it with them and get their feedback.

Mr. Chairman: I am just simply asking whether you would want to set yourself some sort of timeline so that it does not become a recurring decimal over years.

Mr. Flax: We would very much like that.


With everything that we do and, I think, it would be helpful if I could say that we are required to report in two months‘ time that would be an incentive to all concerned to pay some attention to this.

Mr. Chairman: Well, let it be your own self-imposed deadline to give us some feedback over the next two months.

Mr. Flax: Very good, Chairman.


102 Mr. Chairman: There was one other matter in terms of clarification, before I move on to the other question from Members, and I think you said that the director of schools supervision, that position was disbanded— Ms.

Guy: Was disestablished, yes.

Mr. Chairman: What was the contemplated replacement or what was the rationale for that disestablishment?

Ms.
Ms.

Guy: I am not in a position to say exactly what the structure was, I have an idea of what the Ministry contemplated, I believe they had in mind to decentralize a lot of the functions at the Ministry in Port of Spain and to create educational districts where you had something of a quality assurance person at each district and a quality assurance head person which would really replace the DSS.
Mr. Chairman: So, this position of Director of School Supervision is not part of your mandate, your mandate is teachers?

Ms.

Guy: Well, because it has been disestablished the question does not arise, but a lot of the positions outside of teaching have been delinked for the Public Service Commission and are within our remit, so it probably would be the replacement.
Mr. Chairman: If you are saying that there is some lacuna in the process, is it something that you would want to investigate and make some sort of recommendation within that timeline as to what should be done in liaison, of course, with the Ministry of Education?

Ms.

Guy: We do that directly with the Ministry all the time.
We have quarterly meetings with the Ministry at strategic level, we have operational meetings monthly and we indicate some of the challenges, on both sides—those meetings really help us to work things through and to get the process going.

Mr. Chairman: I am asking in this particular instance if you are of the view that the disestablishment has caused some dislocation and do you consider it part of your mandate or do you intend to deal with that matter within what sort of time frame?

Ms.
Ms.

Guy: This disestablishment of the DSS and the fact that there is not a replacement position, yes, it has created a void.

Whether it is part of our mandate?

Our mandate is strictly appointments and discipline, so I would say it is not strictly within our mandate but it does not mean that we could point out to the Ministry that that there are gaps that are occurring at the level of supervision and that something should be done, and we have done so.

103 Mr. Chairman: Okay.


Any question on appointments?

Mr. Samuel?

Mr. Samuel: Chair, after accessing the last three reports 2007, 2008 and 2009 I recognized that I am unclear with regard to the amount of vacancies there were at the primary school level as opposed to the amount of vacancies at the secondary school level.

I think all are clustered together.

Ms.

Guy: Yes, yes.

Mr. Samuel: I would love to see a distinction between the two.

Ms.

Guy: Primary and secondary?


Mr. Samuel: The reason for that is to see how well we are fulfilling—and people are applying in the system for the two categories and how we are working on it.

Two, I recognized in so many instances because you do that I am unclear as to the appointment of teachers at both levels.

When you cluster it altogether, I am not too sure if your music teachers, per se, spread across the board or if the music teachers just go to the secondary schools.
I visited quite a bit of primary schools and there are no music teachers and stuff like that, and I do that in my constituency.

So I would love to see a clearer picture painted in your reports— Ms.

Guy: Okay, a breakdown.

Mr. Samuel:—with regard to breakdown, what is needed in both areas and what has been fulfilled so that we could see the disparity and see how we could plan to work towards to fulfilling all of these disparities.
As it is today in the report, it is clustered together and I am not too sure, when you say you have filled 500 positions, where?

I would like to see some clarity.

Ms.

Guy: Okay.

Just one clarification, when we talk about the positions that we filled the subject areas, as at page 9 of the 2009 report, these are secondary schools.

Mr. Samuel: That is what I am trying to say.

We try to encourage primary schools into a lot of music, art and stuff like that, but we do not facilitate them with teachers.
We leave it up to some teachers to volunteer to do some little thing part-time and I feel that is really an injustice to the schools, so I feel that we need to look at those areas clearly.

Because primary schools are asked to compete and enter into all of the music competitions, all of the arts and all of the stuff, but we are not facilitating them with the kind of teachers at the levels that it should be, so I would love you all to begin to look at that for me.

Ms.
Ms.

Guy: Yes, because at 5(4) of that same report, page 8, you would see the appointment of primary school teachers that is delegated to the Ministry of Education, so people who are aspiring 104 to be teachers would make their application to the Ministry of Education.

Teaching Service Commission has delegated that responsibility to the Ministry and the Ministry would hold the interviews and keep the order of merit list and make the placements.
We would get the information and we would sign off the order of the merit list.

What I am hearing you saying is that there probably needs to be some focus on it, because it is— you know, you have primary school teachers now, not just your Mathematics and English.

[Interruption] Mr. Samuel: That is right.


The reason for that is that, in every instance—you said it is now left to the Ministry of Education for the primary school situation, and it means, that in your reporting you have to await the reports from the Ministry of Education to inform you all—[Interruption] Ms.

Guy: To inform us of replacements, yes.


Mr. Samuel: I am not too sure how fast you get the reports, but I think that there needs to be far more cohesiveness in the operations so that you can be clear, because you are the Teaching Service Commission and you are not to just leave it up to the Ministry of Education to do their stuff, because you must make recommendations and you must now, to me, ensure that it is being done the way it should be done or else something needs to happen again to reassess it.
Mr. Chairman: Let me, in terms of a clarification, you are suggesting, Mr. Samuel, that the—as I understand it, the curriculum is determined by the Ministry of Education.

Ms.

Guy: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: But the appointment of teachers is part of your mandate even though it is delegated to the Ministry of Education.

Ms.

Guy: Yes that is right.

We do secondary schools, the Ministry does primary schools.

The Ministry has delegated it.


Mr. Chairman: But of necessity then, you would have to ensure that in order to fulfill the curriculum, whatever that curriculum is, that there are sufficient teachers appointed in each particular category or area for that to be done?

Ms. H. Guy: Yes, yes.


Mr. Chairman: I think what you are asking is that the oversight, that there is some rationalization in the process and harmonization to ensure that the curriculum, as determined by the Ministry of Education, can actually be realized, because of the adequate appointment of teachers in each particular syllabus.

Is that what you are raising?


105 Mr. Samuel: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and that—well I have now gathered that this report basically is a secondary school report and not a total school report.

Mr. Chairman: Are you suggesting then, that within the report that the matter of primary school teachers, even though delegated but still responsibility of the Teaching Service Commission should be reported to Parliament?

Mr. Samuel: Yes.

Ms. H. Guy: Okay.


So what I am hearing you say is that perhaps not enough information is provided in the report as to what happens in the Primary school?

Let us ask Mr. Ali to give some more specific information on that.

Mr. Ali: Yes, I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that the Teaching Service Commission is only authorized to fill positions as established by the Government.
If you want music teachers in school, the Government has to establish those positions and then the Teaching Service Commission will fill them.

The Teaching Service Commission does not have a mandate to see that the curriculum is adequately delivered.

The mandate is to see that teachers as provided in the budget are appointed.

Prof. Deosaran: Not for contract persons.

Mr. Ali: Except for contract teachers which the Government introduced a few years ago.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Samuel, you wanted to add something?

Mr. Samuel: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if the cart is before the horse or the horse before the cart.

Music is part of the curriculum at primary school and at secondary school level.

It is part of the curriculum; children are expected to participate in it.

And if that is the case then there needs to be a supply of teachers.

So I am not too clear on what the situation is and I would like to find out eventually what the situation really is.
Mr. Ali: The supply of teachers, as determined by the Government through the Ministry of Education.

It is not the business of the commission to determine how many teachers, it is the business of the employer.

Mr. Samuel: Okay.

Mr. Abdulah: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Through you, one of the gaps in the information I think was also with respect to teachers.

You have given us details about principals, vice- principals, deans and so on in terms of vacancies.
In the 2009 report there were 656 successful teachers appointed to secondary schools, or candidates, I suppose they were then not appointed.

106 But we do not know how many vacancies were being applied for.

Seven hundred and twenty- nine people applied, but we do not know—was it therefore, which I do not think it was, 729 vacancies?

Probably not!
Probably not!

So I think we will also need to know how many vacancies exist, both at the primary and secondary level and then to see how many of those vacancies have in fact been filled.

And just like you did for the other categories at the senior levels, to see what the backlog was at point (A) and how that backlog hopefully has been reduced and so on, so we get a sense of what is taking place.
I know that one reason—well it was from press reports—that there are vacancies in schools and children do not have anybody to teach them, because there are no teachers being appointed and so on.

I think it would be helpful as well, Mr. Chairman, if we could have that number of vacancies both at the primary and secondary level, the teacher level.
Perhaps also break it down, because I am sure you have the data because there are different categories of Teachers, you have Teacher I, Teacher II and so on and it might also be useful to know by category of teacher.
The reason why I think that will be useful, Mr. Chairman, is that we could then get a sense and I am sure being the Chairman of the Commission and Mr. Flax and these people with extensive HR experience and so on—we would not debate their IR now because I am wearing my hat as a Senator and not as a trade unionist this morning.
But I think that one needs to get a sense as to whether the output, it sounds too mechanical, but the number of persons coming out of teacher training, whether that number is sufficient and appropriate to the vacancies that may exist for teachers at whatever category.

Then, secondly, in terms of the challenge to fill the deans, heads of department, senior teachers— coming back to the earlier question on your answer, Ms.
Guy, whether there are programmes in place to train teachers and for teacher themselves to know what the progression criteria are, so that they can position themselves to move up the ladder, so to speak with a clear understanding if they do X course or programme of study they will now be eligible to apply for a position as senior teacher, head of department, dean and so on.

I think it would be useful to have some of that information available.
It is not just for the Parliament in terms of the report because, Mr. Chairman, because once their report is laid in Parliament it then becomes public knowledge for the availability of our citizens.

I think citizens would want to know that information in line with what Mr. Sharma had mentioned earlier.

107 Mr. Chairman: On a point of clarification, I do not think Mr. Abdulah could ever take off his hat as a trade unionist.

He is actually a trade unionist masquerading as a Senator.
But that apart I just want to get some clarification on going back to this matter of the music teachers [Interruption] Ms. H. Guy: Primary school?

Mr. Chairman: Primary school, the curriculum.

I just want to use it as an example.

You used a very interesting word in your submission to the committee and it was ―fragmentation‖.

I noted the word and I thought that it is something I would go on to raise with you.

Using this example there is the suggestion that there is some fragmentation.
Because when I listened to Mr. Ali what he was saying is, the job of the commission is to fill the roster but I believe that the job of the commission may also be to make some suggestions in order to reduce the fragmentation gap, as to what may be required to ensure that the curriculum is fulfill for the various—so I certainly would like to get some feedback from you before our next meeting or at our next meeting as to what are your thoughts recommendation and possibly initiatives to address, in particular, this matter of the curriculum and the required number of personnel to achieve the goals set out in the curriculum.
You may not have the answer now but it is something that appears to be a question that is cropping up.

Ms.

Guy: Yes, Certainly it is something that we will provide more specific information on particularly with the vacancies and how the vacancies in the various subject areas were filled.

But again just for clarification, the fillings for teachers in the secondary schools in the various subject areas, we have changed how we do this overtime.
There was a process where you know you applied for a particular position and you stood in line to be interviewed and that really was not benefiting the system because you could end up with so many teachers in a particular subject area and there were no vacancies in that particular subject area.
So again through our meetings with the Ministry, we indicated that the Ministry should identify its areas of need and send those candidates, after they did the proper screening and so on, the Teaching Service Commission, so that those candidates could be interviewed and we could put the people on the order of merit lists and have those order of merit list in terms of a priority and the need.

At one time there was a need for Spanish teachers.


So we said look you do not have to go in this chronological order, I applied first or I should be interviewed first.

Economics is an area that we have a lot of people but Spanish and Mathematics we do not.
So we 108 said look you know you can jump those, pull the Spanish teachers and let us interview those, or the mathematics or the physics and we will create the order of merit list so that as soon as a vacancy comes up we can have people on the list and you can just pull them.

The principals go to the schools look at the order of merit list and they are to take the people from the list in accordance with the order that they are on.
So our job really is to populate those lists; make sure that those lists are populated with competent people so that whenever a vacancy comes up there is no gap, there should not be a delay in filling the positions.

Mr. Chairman: So you propose changes the queuing system so that you would have 10 or 11 queues as supposed to one queue?—[Interruption] Ms. H. Guy: In order, and there is a priority.

Mr. Chairman: Okay.

I understand.


Ms. H. Guy: So you know when people come and they say you know I have applied for a teaching position and it is three years I have not been interviewed.

But you may be in the Principles of Business you know it is just an area that we have a glut.
Mr. Chairman: Now as a parent myself of a secondary school child you would hear discussions, well, we have not have a chemistry teacher for a few months or we have not have a physics teacher for three months, is there a mechanism where you are properly notified of the vacancies in the schools?

Ms. H. Guy: No, no.

Mr. Chairman: There is none.

Ms. H. Guy: We struggle with that also, because as I say our role is to populate those lists and we know that the lists are populated.
So when we hear of a school that does not have a chemistry or physics teacher we look at our list and we say that there are people on this list.

Why do we not have a teacher going to this particular school?

And, again, it is where we have to work with the officials of the Ministry of Education to say well, you know, how soon can we make a placement in one school or the other?

For various reasons, we cannot speak here for the Ministry, but for various reasons it just takes a little while.
Mr. Chairman: It is an intriguing situation where you have persons in the queue who would have qualified to teach, let use the example of chemistry in the secondary school, but the school cannot get the vacancy filled.

Would you want to make certain reviews and recommendations as to how that matter could be resolved?
109 Ms. H. Guy: I would ask Prof. Deosaran because it may be an issue of the regulations, because we cannot really tell the Ministry do this, you know we cannot take the list and make the placements ourselves.

We can populate the lists.

Maybe it is an issue of regulations, Professor?

Mr. Chairman: Have you forgotten how to use that, Professor?

Prof. Deosaran: Pardon me, Sir.

Mr. Chairman: Have you forgotten how to use the system?

Prof. Deosaran: Yes, sometimes; seven months well.


Mr. Chairman: Welcome, welcome back.

Prof. Deosaran: Thank you for your kind remarks and also I am happy to meet Members of the committee.

It is a very important committee, not only with respect to the Teaching Service Commission but the other commissions.

What our chairman is relating are really the symptoms for a basic problem or challenges.
Number one, we are looking at the regulations; we are reviewing the regulations because we have been using since September 1968, the Public Service Regulations, and we have been calling them, as proxy, Teaching Service Regulations.

So we are now taking a serious review to have our own Teaching Service regulations.

The reason that that is very important is to encourage or to coerce in some way or the other, the Ministry of Education to supply information to us in a steady, regular manner.
You will recognize, as I have recognized, that a number of the deficiencies that we face as a Commission lies mainly because of our dependency on the Ministry of Education‘s resources and responses, and we really need to close that gap.

The questions that Mr. Samuel and my longstanding friend, Mr. Abdulah, and Mr. Sharma, had been raising pertain really to the extent to which the Ministry of Education could respond to our request.
We have discussed that among ourselves and we find that, well, we have to depend without having any sanction, or to put it in a general way, there is no accountability to us as a constitutionally mandated Commission to demand the response that we need to be efficient and to carry out the mandate that the Constitution requires us to do.
So you have been reading in the press that the Teaching Service Commission did not do this or could not do that, and it is really because we did not get the information on time, and we have asked for the information.

Therefore, to illustrate, it is similar to a relationship between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police.

If the police does not complete its investigation in 110 time, and properly for the DPP to act, the DPP just cannot act.

It is a similar situation.
In other words, in the regulations that we are looking at, we have to re-enforce ourselves to carry out the mandate that we are required to do, and that is a fundamental issue, that is, in terms of dependence on the Ministry of Education, we have also delegated a number of functions to them, but in that delegation we need to tighten up the accountability for carrying out those functions as well, because it comes back to delays and the vacancies that Mr. Abdulah and Mr. Samuel are talking about, relate to these deficits that we need to correct very, very early and quickly.
The other issue, which is another fundamental point and the voice of the Commission, is reflected in the annual report; I am giving my considered view at this time.

Another fundamental point is: can five members of a Commission carry out interviews of thousands of persons in a short space of time to respond to the demands of the system?

That cannot happen, especially since the members are part-time.
When I was first appointed a month ago and I sat at the first meeting, then the second meeting, I thought I had misunderstood things in the first meeting.
But when I start at the second and third meetings and I saw the volume of work required of five persons who are part-time and considering a teaching service with about 16,000 teachers, apart from about 700 schools across the system, and the questions you are asking about delivery and so on, it relates to the structure of the Service Commission in terms of resources and in terms of the status of the Commissioners.
So those are two very fundamental issues and, not trying to belabour the point, I put that on the table for you to have some compassion and whatever you might see us not fulfilling.

Mr. Chairman: And compassion you will have, probably not from me.
I want to, before I ask Members to pose some other questions, I did not get the, sort of, helpful answer that I wanted with regard to that specific example, chemistry, because I know that Prof. Deosaran is very good at responding to matters such as regulations and so on.
But you know the old adage about while the grass is growing, the horse must not starve, I certainly would like to get some sort of comfort that there can be some interim measures put in place to resolve some of these issues, in particular the whole question of vacancies.
Because as Prof. Deosaran rightly said, the question of regulations for the Teaching Service Commission has been around since 1968 and I think that it may take quite some time—I do not know—for the regulations for the Teaching Service Commission to be completed.

In the interim, what are the, shall we say, quick fixes that can be applied and that you would be prepared to recommend in your liaison with the Ministry of 111 Education?

Ms.
Ms.

Guy: As I indicated, we have quarterly meetings at the strategic level and then we have monthly operational meetings at which the executive director and her team meet with the HR team in the Ministry, and that could be on the agenda.

Because what we have on the agenda right now, we have issues like the vacancies that we are expecting at the level of principal, vice- principal, heads of departments, and so on.
We can put that on the agenda also, the expected vacancies in the subject areas; what the order of merit list looks like and whether we can fill those vacancies.

So it means that in preparation when the Ministry officials come to the Teaching Service Commission for this meeting, they are coming with information on where these vacancies are and we are ensuring that we have lists populated and we are leaving there knowing that within a short period of time these vacancies could be filled.
So we can add that on the monthly agenda, which is also filling of vacant positions in secondary schools.

Mr. Chairman: I want to belabour the point a little bit for purposes of clarification.
The reason that we cannot really have compassion on Prof. Deosaran is because parents, seeing their children without a chemistry teacher for three months, which is one term of the entire year, they suffer some serious anxieties and it does lead to situations where students who might be sufficiently well equipped to handle a particular curriculum would fail or underperform because of that period.
So that I do not think, very often, parents would consider that there are 16,000 teachers which the Teaching Service Commission would have to deal with.

I think that is our client and we have to find ways to essentially close the gap.

So I would ask the Commission to consider and make recommendations to the Ministry of Education and let the committee know what your intentions are to deal with this matter by the next time we meet or any time before that.

Ms.

Guy: Sure.
Ms.

Guy: Sure.

Mr. Chairman: Professor, you wanted to raise a point?

Prof. Deosaran: I think there has to be some direct communication, given the tenor of your concern, justifiably so, from your committee along the way to the Ministry of Education, because you are entitled to call them for information as well.
And I would like to feel you should invite them to a meeting alongside with information we have given you and see where the gaps are and how they can respond to the needs of the parents as clients, and so on, because I would have to repeat, we depend on them procedurally and administratively to give us the information to act, 112 otherwise we just cannot move, no matter how zealous we might be.
So while we would encourage them, as the Chairman had said, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that maybe you should make some direct link and find out where their gaps are and what their issues are and get them to speed up the responses.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, and that will be considered.


I think we owe it to the Commission to have a conversation with the Commission at the first pass, and once we understand what the concerns and issues are, we will take follow-up discussions with all the relevant stakeholders which you have pointed out, as the CPO, the DPA, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Public Administration and so on.

Prof. Deosaran: Let me give you an example which is of current note in the country.
The Chairman and the Commission before I arrived, issued a circular that certain matters concerning, especially, child abuse, must be reported forthwith to the Commission, meaning the same day, so as to help bypass the bureaucratic delays and so on.

That has not been sufficiently adhered to and Dr. Mahase always asks me, well, what can we do?
Mr. Flax asks me; the chairman asks: what can we do in the face of such a circumstance when the public requires us as a Commission to act expeditiously and properly according to what the Constitution wants us to do?

That is one example.

So maybe we can give you a list of things that when your turn comes to meet the Ministry—Madam Chairman can give you a list of things that perhaps you can raise with them to help improve the system.

Mr. Chairman: That would be much appreciated.

Questions?

Mr. Abdulah?


Mr. Abdulah: I was wondering whether persons, say, at the level of principal and vice- principal—because I see one of the recommendations that you are making to deal with discipline is the principals be given more responsibility for discipline.

Ms.

Guy: Yes, discipline.


Mr. Abdulah: Of course, you can decide that and put that in regulations or whatever, and then the persons who are there may be excellent teachers; may be good principals in terms of managing a school with respect to the delegation of teachers to different classes and so on, and time-tabling and things like that, but may not necessarily have any background or experience or training in how to deal with matters of discipline in terms of just basic industrial relations.

Ms.
Ms.

Guy: Yes.

Mr. Abdulah: I am therefore wondering whether, as you contemplate a move such as that— 113 because it impinges on the whole process of reporting, whether it is vacancies and so on— whether the people in the system have been trained or given the necessary information and background that will enable them to function effectively as managers of those schools, because if that does not happen, everything else will break down thereafter.

Ms.
Ms.

Guy: Well, it is necessary when you are implementing such a plan, as we have, which is the delegation, that you look at all aspects of the plan which would make it effective.

That is why we do a lot of consultations with our various stakeholders when we are contemplating a revision in policy or the administration of anything.
We consult extensively with our stakeholders, and that would have to be part of the plan, because it is not going to work if people are not aware and they do not have the skills and the competencies to demonstrate this within the establishment.
When we look at the profile of misconduct that comes before us, we think that even right now if people had a different skill-set, for example, you would not see misconduct which, you know, reads something like, you know, confronting a teacher or the teacher calling a principal a particular name.

You know, these are things that in the normal course of relating with other people, we have the conflict management skills to deal with, and sometimes these issues come to us as allegations of misconduct.
So, yes, in doing further delegation, we would have to work with the Ministry so that they could put in place a series of training and development programmes so the people who have to administer this can only take this up when they have been so trained.

Mr. Samuel: Chair, there are three questions that I have and the purpose of the questions is for me to understand clearly.
Prof. Deosaran made a strong point about the amount of work that is required of the Commission and with the idea of you being part-time.

I have looked at your proposals in the last three reports, ―The Way Forward‖ and I have not seen such recommendations.

If you know of the amount of work that you have to do, there have been no recommendations to take us in that direction.

So I would suggest that you review your recommendations in your next report, as you make your report.
Two, I am not too sure of the appraisal management system that is used at schools for teachers, and if there is one, how it works, and if there is one, how do the reports come to you in any way—appraisal management for teachers, if it comes to you.

Ms.

Guy: The report comes to us only when we are filling a position.
When we are filling a position and a teacher applies for a position, then together with the application of that teacher, 114 must come an appraisal report, a staff reporter and a special report, so that we can properly consider that teacher.
Mr. Samuel: The reason I ask is that we hear so often of highly performing schools, and then there are schools that are not performing well, and we tend to lean towards the idea that based upon the location of the school, the geography of the school, depending on the area, the children perform worst off than others.
I am not in agreement with that and it could be that the teachers may be at fault likewise—I am not blaming teachers—but because of the demographics, because of the geography, schools in certain areas may be taken for granted, the children in certain areas may be taken for granted.

And we need to probably, in your approach, pay particular attention to these schools that are deemed to be performing poorly, and then look closely at the appraisals of the teachers.
So that we can see whether it is the geography situation or the performance of the teachers situation that is sort of enhancing the poor performance of it.

The third question I want to ask is the human resource situation.

Do we know in five years how many Spanish teachers we need?

How many maths teachers we need?

And I am asking that because it is a proactive measure.
Every year teachers are retiring, in the next five years do you know how many teachers would have retired in five years, four years, and three years, in ten years?
And what mechanisms are put in place to ensure that we are now guiding the education system in such a manner, that people are aware that in 2015 we would need 500 Spanish teachers, a 1000 mathematics teachers, so that we can now take the education system from the secondary school level and begin to guide the minds into the direction of availability as we know in five years from now, four years from now, in three years from now, so the system could be channeled in those directions rather than just leaving it ‗hablash‘.
Ms.

Guy: Now that is the way it should be done, that is proper HR planning and I think what we brought to the commission was really a human resource management approach because it is appointments and it is discipline.

And you know, if we are running an organization—a small organization, you look at your resources and you look down the road and see what you need and you plan today for the next five years.
Public service/teaching service is a little more challenging but it is not impossible it could be done.

We have a database of all the teachers that we have on the system, we know when teachers are going to retire, we know the likelihood, because you can say people will retire at 60 definitely, 115 but you can also say that you expect a certain percentage would leave from 50 onwards.

And you can project for that and you make a plan.


It is a little more complex when you look at subject areas because you have to do some more projections but again it could be done.

So the data is there and it could be done.


We do it for principals and vice principals, because it is very clear those are the leaders in the schools, and we look and we see these are the principals that would retire in 2011, so let us today, put some recruitment and selection processes in place so that when these people leave we will be filling those positions.

You expect that some people may resign before time, people leave for other reasons.

We make some projections for those.


When it comes to the subject areas, I am saying it is a little more complex but it could be done.

The data is there that it could be done and it is something that we would have to turn our minds too and do some proper human resource planning, but it is not really the function of the Teaching Service Commission.

Mr. Samuel: I know, but you can make recommendations.

Ms.

Guy: But we could make recommendations.

Mr. Samuel: You can make proposals.

Ms.


Guy: That strong HR planning should really be done at the Ministry, and we have encouraged them with the principals and vice principals, and we continue to do so.

They have come along, and we have really made some good in roads, and we can continue to do that with the subject areas and the primary school teachers also.
Mr. Samuel: I ask those questions because I pay particular attention to ‗Your Way Forward‘ in each report and looking to see what approaches you are recommending, and what direction should be taken.

So I look forward to things like that in your next ‗Your Way Forward‘ report, to make sure that we are making the kinds of recommendations to the Ministry, and because—I am not too sure who guides who, if the Commission advises the Ministry or if the Ministry advises the Commission.

I am not too sure.

Ms.


Guy: It depends on the area.

We are appointments and discipline when it comes to performance management, training, curriculum that is not our purview.

But we could recommend we could advise.

Mr. Samuel: Because if it interferes with the overall performance of things, then recommendations are necessary.

Ms.

Guy: We have not taken a stand-off approach, as a matter of fact, it is more said of us that 116 we overstep, than we stand back, and look and say that is not our purview.
Because yes, a lot of these issues here, they affect us and if we do not step in and say something, then we can easily sit back and say, well we did not do this because, somebody else did not do something and that is not the way we see ourselves.

Mr. Chairman: I want to, if we can, turn to the whole question of a future agenda, which was alluded to by Mr. Samuel, it is a good point of introduction.

What are the plans of the Teaching Service Commission for the next, shall we say three to five years?
What are the critical areas that need to be addressed, so as to enhance and improve the efficiency of the Commission?

And I want us to try to articulate as much as we can in several areas, one would be the legislative and regulatory requirements for enhanced effectiveness.
Two, would be the resourcing whether it be a Teaching Service Commission Secretariat, the context of that secretariat, whether it be—you do have the power for delegation, with a secretariat there might be more room for effective delegation.

I think we all have to remember that the Teaching Service Commission would have been established way back when and since that time, I am sure the number of teachers and the extent of oversight required may have increased five to tenfold.
I do not know what the figures were way back in 1962 as the case may be.

We as a Committee would like to get a sense of what are the areas that are going to be addressed, and how they are going to be addressed over the next to three-to-five year time frame.

And that is why we ask for a strategic plan which would include implementation.

So would you want to address some of these areas?

Ms.

Guy: Well, I will address some aspects of it, and I will ask my team members to address some other aspects.
I will address the issue of appointments, and then, perhaps because we have not heard, Dr. Mahase, I will ask her to talk about stakeholder relations and some of the issues that we are dealing with our stakeholders, and Mr. Flax, with respect to discipline and of course, Professor R. Deosaran with the legislative agenda.

But let me treat with the issue of appointments.

We believe that we have the issue of appointments to the leadership positions generally under control.
We have it in hand, that is the principals and vice principals, and the administrative positions.

By the end of this year we feel we would have gotten to the point where appointments would be made real-time; a vacancy comes up and we would be going to a list and identifying somebody for that particular school.

117 In terms of the assessment process, we have reviewed the process of assessing and evaluating candidates, so that we get a better quality candidate in that assessment process.
And there are some plans going forward to strengthen that.

Particularly for primary schools we would like to see an introduction of psychometric testing, that element of the selection process introduced, so that we know that when teachers are coming in to teach our students, they have the right mindset, they have the right approach, they have right character and personality type, that we are looking for and we have done some early research into how we can go about doing that.
So that is certainly on the agenda for appointments.

The selection centre that we had requested, that has been established.

It is not in the most ideal location, it is in heart of Port of Spain, we would have preferred not to go in the heart of Port of Spain but it is where it is, it is quite roomy, it has all the facilities that we could desire.

What we need to do is staff that appropriately at this point, because we are using the resources from the Teaching Service Commission.
They go there physically, they are not housed there, they go back and forth, so we really need to staff that.

So that is on our plans for the future.

And also, in terms of appointments as we indicated in our report, we need to do some further delegation of some functions to the Ministry.

There are some things that come to us really and if you ask us what value we add it is not much, we just kind of rubberstamp.
Further temporary appointments—we identified it on page 8, acting appointments, we feel that the employer the Ministry can do this, and we just need a strong reporting and auditing mechanism, so that we are aware of what is happening.

Conformations, transfers, permission to retire, all of these things really come to us in a bulk way that we just sign off.
You look there, you see if there is a red flag, some issues, but really and truly the Ministry should be handling these things and we should really be focusing on ensuring that we tighten our selection process, so that we get the best candidates and we ensure that the schools have the resources that they have.

So let me ask Dr. A. Mahase to talk a bit about our ongoing relationships with our stakeholders.

Dr. Mahase: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


I just wanted to add one thing to what the Chairman said earlier, when we were talking about regularity and punctuality of teachers.
When we get the special report on teachers that we are going to be interviewing for promotional posts, we pay a lot of importance and weigh very heavily the report on regularity and punctuality, because these teachers are going to be assuming leadership roles, you are looking at deans and head of departments applying for vice principalship posts and vice principalship applying for 118 principalship posts so we weight regularity and punctuality very heavily.
Everything else being equal with two people, we look at this because you cannot go up there and not lead by example.

So this is the rationale behind the reason for weighing this so very heavily.

Now our calendar of events for this coming year, we believe in transparency, that you know what is happening, and moving forward, getting things done.
In the first quarter which is January to March, we were to have a meeting with the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Education in February, but that was postponed by the Ministry itself, still to come; meeting with TTUTA in February this was held last week or week before, because we keep in touch with them, listen to them, what their problems are, and we try to understand and we try to clarify certain areas in their minds.
Then we also will have in March, a meeting with the Association of the Denominational Boards as distinct from the Principals Association, this is with members or representatives from the denominational boards .

Dr. Mahase: They have their own peculiar problems that they want us to help them with and we want them to help us with too.

Then we go on into March again with meeting with the Tobago stakeholders.
We go to Tobago and we meet with the stakeholders in Tobago on their grounds so they all attend this particular meeting in March.

This is as opposed to or as separate from when we go to interview for promotions for positions of principals and vice-principals.

In the second quarter, April to June, we are planning a press conference in April.

We want the country to know what we are doing and we intend to invite the media to a press conference.
This is the first time we will be going in that direction and we think that that is going to again, the transparency where the country will know exactly what we are doing.

Then in April, we have meetings with The Association of School Principals both primary and secondary, those principals, then we meet them in April again for the same reasons and we also will be meeting in May and June with the principals of two educational districts.
Now, educational districts meaning there are five, I think, educational districts in the country, two of these you have principals of all schools, we want to meet with the principals directly because we have been meeting with the supervisors.
Now when you meet with the supervisors and talk to them you get their point of view in different things and of course we share, again they have they problems and we tell them what we find, if something is lacking in an area of supervision and so on but you do not get the principals.

We are planning to meet with the principals of two education districts in May and June that will be a 119 larger number of course.
In the third quarter, July to September, we want to meet again with the Permanent Secretary in July and then we would like to meet with supervisors also in July because we want to meet in each quarter with the supervisors.

Meeting with principals of two other educational districts in September, again a one to one with the principals.
And in the last quarter, October to December, we want to meet with principals of the other two educational districts sometime in October and November and in November we want to have another press conference at the end of the year.
Now this a tentative schedule, it is subject to changes and alterations but we want as far as it is possible to stick to this pattern because unless you have a calendar of events and you know where you are going, you have to know how you are going to get there and this is our plan for the rest of the year.

Mr. Flax: Thank you.


Madam Chairman, to talk about discipline in the schools which has become a major talking point and maybe I think exaggeratedly so because of the fifty or so delinquents and the others remaining out of the sixteen thousand feel themselves targeted, but I want to talk about this in a larger context, there was some work that the Chairman and I had started doing when we looked at how the structure inhibits performance.
Now, I would not have to tell somebody like Mr. Abullah, that if you have an organization with sixteen thousand employees there are certain HR and IR structures that need to be in place.

The way we have grown, those are not in place.

You have a number of institutions that are laws unto themselves.

The CPO does not relate to us but sets the terms and conditions and the qualifications.

The qualifications are set by the Ministry of Education and they do not have to consult us on that.
You have the pensions group, you have the discipline group, you have a number of disparate groups which are not tied together so when the question of discipline comes up, it is something that we need to map.
If something happens in the school it goes to the principal, the principal takes it to the school supervisor, the school supervisor takes it to the DSS when they were there, if not to the CEO; from the CEO it goes to the PS, then from the PS it goes to discipline and then from discipline it comes to us, meantime a year has passed, a child is being abused in the school and while the process is taking place nothing is happening to resolve it.
The principles of discipline as we know, remind that it should be done as close as possible and as quickly as possible to the event.

Ideally therefore, like in any organization, the CEO of that organization, the principal, needs to take immediate action to see that these disciplinary matters 120 are dealt with.
The point made by Mr. Abdullah is a correct one, they may not have the capacity to do that but in any organization where there is a CEO, the CEO has trained people working with him or her to ensure that discipline is dealt with in accordance with normal industrial relations practice taking the laws of natural justice into account.
So we have begun developing a proposal that would recommend a total restructuring so that you have the proper synergies between the various parts of HR as you have in any organization, we do not have to reinvent it.

We have international organizations that have one hundred thousand people and they deal with these issues in an expeditious manner.

So that while we are attempting to put plasters on the sores by insisting that they report to us forthwith and that has become something of a tagline among us.
The point made by the Chairman is if they do not, there is no sanction that we can apply.

Prof. Deosaran made the point.

The ministry is not answerable to us and there have been cases where we have asked and demanded information and they have just not given it.

They have not just given it and what does one do in the public service?

You write something, but that does not guarantee that it is going to happen.
We are moving to try and expedite the way discipline is dealt with by dealing with the stakeholders that Dr. Mahase mentioned.

Getting a consensus among us that, this thing cannot continue.
It has worked to some extent in the most serious cases, but we still remain with the other ongoing matters and as Mr. Ali has said while we say that there are only maybe 30 to 40 cases of indiscipline, we are concerned that there are many others that we do not hear about because it is unlikely that out of sixteen thousand employees, you only have 30 or 40 cases of problems.
So that our mandate for this year is to review the process of maintaining discipline in the schools and putting whatever changes we need to put in place within the limits of our mandate to ensure that these problems identified, dealt with expeditiously and that they are reduced by as large an extent as possible.
Dr. Mahase: I had forgotten to mention earlier that years and years ago when I sat in the University Council one of the things I wanted to do was to ensure that the University at St. Augustine did not sit in an ivory tower and suggested at them a magazine.

You know the magazine is now STAN.

Same with the Teaching Service Commission, we have decided to produce is magazine; a newsletter called the Teaching Service Commission Speaks.

You all should at least have a copy.


We try to get this out at least once a quarter.

In it, information concerning the commission is there, we have a guest speaker, what we do also, 121 we have articles written by the Commissioners themselves—Case for Teacher Orientation and we have here too: Why Service Commissions?
Which the Chairman has written, and of course, Regularity and Punctuality and in the back you have Know your Regulations and this is the production of the Teaching Service Commission called The Teaching Service Commission Speaks.

Always ensure that you get your copy please.

Thank you Madam Chair.

Mr. Chairman: To ensure that we get our copy we will give you our names and addresses and you can mail them out to us.

Send it to the Parliament.


Prof. Deosaran: I have spoken already but I will be relatively brief.

The review of the regulations, Mr. Chairman, will be taken into account what the Education Act says, for example, there are 12 stated duties of the role of a supervisor.
In view of the changes that you have remarked, from where the Service Commission started in 1962, up to now and the way the rapid increase of schools and teachers and the functions have changed a bit so we would want to see whether we can review the Legislation and also make recommendations for the Education Act itself which I think is also an ongoing exercise in the ministry.

Similarly, there are 11 specific duties for principals.
When you examine these duties, you recognize that there are new things to be added and those things have relationship to the work of the Service Commission.

So it is in that general light the current regulations governing the Teaching Service Commission are being reviewed.

More than that, we have to delegate certain of our functions, of necessity and also for authentic responses, people on the ground, the principals, supervisors, and so on, have to give us the information.
Where there is a gap, as I mentioned before and with the new regulations would attend too, is how do you delegate but with some measure of accountability and as you are insisting upon the benchmarking of time, timelines and so on.
The question of the concordat is something that we will have to look at and tidy up the arrangement so as to fulfil, one: the public responsibility of these denominational schools but at the same time preserve their rights and their obligations to their respective denominations and that is a rope that we will have to walk very tightly on as you know.
Another major point is that we have to review in terms of framing our new regulations, what the judgments from Judicial Review—several reviews have found, not only this commission wanted in some respects but the role of service commissions generally and see what those judicial recommendations are and try to fit them as far as it is practically possible into our own regulations 122 so that we will ensure matters of due process, natural justice and fairness apart from what we demand from the teachers and so on that those elements of due process, natural justice are carefully carried out.
So this is a global view of the exercise we are now into and you might be pleased to hear in a short while we will be delivering a draft report perhaps for you and your committee to have look at and give us some responses along the way.

Thank you Sir.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, are there any further questions?
Mr. Abdulah: Chair, not so much a question but in terms of the way forward and I listened carefully what Prof. Deosaran was saying as well as Mr. Flax and it was in your 2011 report to us you did indicate that there were these overlapping perhaps areas of responsibility for HR within the Teaching Service, of course, there was a view by some, which is not the view now that the Service Commission should simply be abolished and so on, we are not now of that view but there may be particular recommendations, because obviously, if there are problems and we continue trying to do the same things the same way, the problems will never ever get resolved.
So clearly we have to come up with new approaches and/or some new alignments of responsibilities and so on and therefore in your way forward it might be useful to suggest how this system could be simplified so that there is not a situation where you have either overlap or perhaps even conflicting responsibilities located in different—essentially administrative now, I am talking about a constitutional arrangement; constitutional arrangement is with respect to the commission, it is with respect to the Personnel Department but there are other layers that seem to have responsibilities and perhaps you may want to look at that in terms of how do we simplify the system of human resource management of the teaching service.
Sixteen thousand people is a significant number of people and if education is central to the country‘s development and there are bottle necks in the delivery of education because of the process by which appointments get made or there is a vacancy for three months and so on those things obviously affect children and affects the whole functioning of the school and so on, then we need to find a way of fixing those things.
So I think it will be very useful to hear the suggestions, Chair, and then I know that perhaps you may develop on this and it links back to a point made by Mr. Sharma earlier that is over the next period for which we are going to be on this committee we would like to know that particular targets were set for one year.
Over the next period for which we will be on this Committee, we would like to know that 123 particular targets were set for one year then we want to know have you attained those targets and, if not, why not?

In other words, it is one thing to say that all these things need to done and then four or five years go by, everybody is very busy, everybody is doing a lot of work.

Nobody is saying that people are lapsing in terms of not doing their work, but the targets are just not met.
Then four or five years just disappear and then we say, well, you know, that the things that ought to be done four years ago just were not done.

And four, or five years are a long time, we multiply that by two and three and then a generation goes by and we did not do what we ought to have done.

So, we really would like to see the Commission set some benchmarks for itself in terms of what it would like to achieve.
So that, at the level of this Committee, having a certain oversight and so on, we could then know that you are achieving those targets yourselves, not that you will get a performance bonus for that but that—you have achieved those targets and the country will know that those targets are achieved, so that over a period of time we know that in fact, real progress has been made.

Ms. H. Guy: Thank you, we will take that into consideration.
Mr. Chairman: Let me ask the Commission, as we have asked before, what is the sort of timing that you would consider reasonable for the development of a medium-term plan or a strategic plan for the next three to five years?

Ms. H. Guy: We are well on our way towards developing that.

When we were first convened in 2005, we met in session and we did a strategic plan for 2006—2008, and we had set ourselves some goals.

Those goals were not immediately achieved in 2008 and they rolled over into 2010.
We met in another session.

We have been meeting every year but specifically in December 2010 to chart a new medium term plan and we have the elements of that plan.

We looked at what we have achieved and some of the challenges that we continue to face, we assessed ourselves and we have determined our way forward.

So we have elements of that plan.


We are still meeting with a couple stakeholders so that we can complete it and, as I indicated in writing to the Committee, by the 25th March we would have that information to you.
Mr. Chairman: I think I would like to suggest to you on behalf of the Committee, that you look in terms of a medium term plan that can take us to 2015, which would be coterminous with our own term so that we can have sufficiently frequently meetings to look at what you have been able to achieve and what are the challenges and road blocks that we can, if at all, assist you in dealing 124 with.

It is 11.48 a.m. and I just want to make some concluding comments.
One is having looked at the work of the Commission over the past two years, on behalf of the Committee I want to extend congratulations to your team in being able to deal with a very significant backlog that existed since 2005/2006.

So I think you have to be commended for the work that was done, especially with a five-man panel dealing with 16,000 people.

I want to commend you for the work that you have done in seeking to enhance the delegation of some of your challenges and requirements.
I want to put on the table that the only way to deal with the fragmentation is to find a way to work towards harmonization and rationalization of all the players.

We are never going to find a situation where everything is going to fall smack and neatly into a framework which would allow for full oversight and control, not when we are dealing with a situation as wide as this.
I think part of your plan should seek to reduce, as much as possible, those areas where you foresee that fragmentation may lead to road blocks and impediments in your work.

We would, of course, seek to meet some of the other stake-players not least of which would be the Minister of Education and certainly at that point in time we may also invite you to join us at that meeting.
I think that it is very important, the work that you are doing is very, very important to the long term growth of this nation, because, after all, your work leads directly into the successes of our children.

And what could be greater work than that?

I understand that your role is part-time only on paper because it must be much more than a full-time job and I want to commend the Commission for the kind of tenacity that has been displayed in grappling with what is essentially a vast volume of work.
I look forward to some of the undertakings that you have given coming to us over the next month or two so that we can progress the work of the Commission and the work of the country.

I want to thank you very much for joining we us today.

Having said that, I would suspend the sitting so that the Committee can deal with some of the other administration matters on its agenda today.

Thank you all very much.

Miss H. Guy: Thank you for your kind sentiments.

11.53a.m.

: Sitting suspended.
125 VERBATIM NOTES OF FIFTH MEETING OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO CONSIDER AND REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND SERVICE COMMISSIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION, HELD IN THE CHAMBER, RED HOUSE, PORT OF SPAIN, ON FRIDAY, MARCH 25, 2011, AT 10.00 A.M. OFFICIALS OF THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION Mr. Nizam Mohammed Mrs. Gloria Edwards-Joseph Ms. Natasha Seecharan Ms. Allison Douglas Chairman Director of Personnel Administration Service Commission Department Legal Adviser, Service Commission Department Senior State Counsel Service Commission Department Ms. Anoushka Ramsaran Senior State Counsel Dr. Kerry Sumesar-Rai Service Commission Department Director Monitoring, Evaluation and Education Mr. Alfred Gray Assistant Director Research and Mr. Anthony Samuel Mrs. Satie Maniram Evaluation Assistant Director Public Education Assistant Director Audit Mrs. Anne-Marie Andrews Senior HRM Advisor, Secretary Mr. Addison Khan Mr. Kenneth Parker Mrs. Jacqueline Cheesman Mr. Martin George Member Member Member Member Mr. Chairman: I want to welcome you all to the Fifth meeting of the Joint Select Committee appointed to enquire into and report to Parliament on Municipal Corporations and Service Commissions with the exception of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission.
We will defer other items on our agenda to when we suspend sittings and we will deal with those items at a later time.

Today I want to welcome the members and welcome also the members of the Police Service Commission and a number of the members of the secretariat of the Police 126 Service Commission.

Welcome to you, Chairman Mr. Nizam Mohammed.


Before we start proceedings may I ask that you introduce the members of your team, and then we will move to introduce some of the Members of our committee some of whom you will be familiar with, so over to you.

[Mr. Nizam Mohammed introduced members of his team.]

[Members of the Committee introduced themselves.]

Mr. Chairman: Thank you all very much for being here.
I want to start the proceedings today by referring to our invitation to the Commission and some of the areas that we asked the Commission to come to us to give some details upon.
And those would first address a review of the administration at the Commission over the past two years, 2008 to 2010; a report on the objectives and goals as listed in your reports tabled before Parliament, information as to the status of a medium term plan out to the next five years; planned areas of implementation; and very importantly, the whole question of legislative and regulatory injections or reforms that you consider to be necessary in order to be able to achieve maximum effectiveness in going forward.
So Chairman, I will turn it over to you to take it from there.

Mr. Mohammed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When we received your letter of invitation we noted the areas of our activities in which you indicated an interest.

With the assistance of our secretariat we caused a response to be prepared and forwarded to the Parliament with the required number of copies for hon.

Members.
Members.

In that report you would see that we have provided some answers to some of the topics that were raised in your letter of invitation.

I note that we were going back according to your letter to 2008 and we have documents with respect to our performance from 2008 coming down.

However, we, the present members of the Commission received our letters of instrument on July 21, last year, so that we are merely eight months in office.
And what we are trying to do is to streamline the operations of the Police Service Commission and develop all the necessary relationships that are required for us to have a holistic approach in dealing with the task of reinstructing the police service, bringing the police service up to a standard of performance that will be acceptable to the nation as a whole, and also the efficiency of the Commission is one of our main concerns.
Since we have assumed office we meet at our office at 62 Queen Street which is in downtown Port of Spain, and we meet on the first and third Thursdays of every month.

In addition to that, we have special meetings if and when necessary, for example, as soon as we got your letter of 127 invitation we had to have a special meeting because we had to meet a certain deadline—there was a request for information.
The Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioners are invited to our first meeting every month, they are required to attend our meetings, so that we can have dialogue with them, get an update as to what is taking place, exchange views, our thoughts, et cetera, and they have been attending from time to time.
During our tenure we have been discharging our constitutional responsibilities which are, inter alia, monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of the performance of the commissioner and his deputies doing the necessary evaluation.
We hear and we determine appeals against the commissioner in respect of his decisions on promotions and discipline, and during our time we have had to appoint a Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners—as a matter of fact, we have had a vacancy recently, we have filled that vacancy with an acting appointment and only last week we have forwarded our nomination to His Excellency the President to fill the vacancy on a permanent basis.

Mr. Chairman: What vacancy?


Mr. Mohammed: A Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr. Maurice Piggot went on retirement leave.

When we assumed office we were soon to discover a myriad of problems and these problems, let me say upfront they are not only peculiar to the Police Service Commission, you hear about these problems in any given government department or public institution.

We have been tackling some of these challenges on an ongoing basis.
One of the first problems is our relationship with the Commissioner of Police and his executive.

In the past, the Police Service Commission was viewed mainly as a disciplinary body and no one wants to get near to a disciplinary body, so that the kind of interaction that we are trying to encourage, it has to happen, the process has to be a slow one; we have to win the confidence of the rank and file of the police service.
Now with the new legislation and the new structure moving ahead with the Commissioner of Police being in complete management of the police service, he is being viewed as a chief executive officer, but we are still being viewed as a disciplinary tribunal.
We want to be seen as an oversight body overseeing the managers, because we believe that that is the correct interpretation of the mandate given to us under the Constitution that we are supposed to be a management authority over the managers of the police service.

So that kind of relationship has to 128 be fine-tuned, there has to be a protocol of understanding for accountability to the Commission by the Commissioner and his deputies, and this has to be done in the short term and we are working on this.
This is the first sitting of the Joint Select Committee, or rather the first meeting between this Joint Select Committee and the Police Service Commission, and I thought it would be highly advisable that your secretariat would issue an invitation to the Commissioner of Police so that he can come in as an observer, and get a feel of what will transpire at this meeting here this morning and also get a further insight into the thinking of the Police Service Commission, unfortunately I have not seen him, nor did he communicate with us as to whether he will be attending or not.
Mr. Chairman: Just to advise, we received some feedback from the Police Commissioner that he was unable to attend, because we extended that invitation to him.

Mr. Mohammed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The burning issue and the most pressing problem for the Police Service Commission is the question of accommodation.
The accommodation is that bad, that if I have—if the Commission has to meet with our Minister of National Security, and he being the line Minister there are times we will have to interact with him, we will have to either go to Cipriani Boulevard where the other Service Commissions are located or perhaps visit him at his office, it is simply unsuitable even to receive official guests where we are located.
Downtown Port of Spain is totally unsuitable and inadequate and we have a lot of problems there, and it is very surprising that we have had a secretariat that has been prepared to work for so long under the kind of adverse conditions that they continue to work.

What have we done?
What have we done?

Recently, we, the commissioners held a meeting with the Minister of Public Administration and she gave us an undertaking that she will attend to this matter and she has advised us that we should actually identify alternative accommodation, preferable outside of the city limits.

So we have started doing that.

Talking about the Secretariat, we have an average of about 19 members who are working at our Secretariat.

The full complement approved by Cabinet is 42.


We do not have a communications specialist.

We do not have a legal advisor.

We are woefully short-staffed.

Let me say at this stage that the legal advisors attached to the service commissions are always on call and they have never failed us when we have required their assistance, whether it has to do with advice or attending our meetings and assisting us in our deliberations.
So that in this process of restructuring the police service and reshaping the Police Service 129 Commission to meet its new mandate and to operate on the recommendations of the Mastrofski Commission and all these legislative changes since 2005, we continue to be caught up in a transition mode.

To put it bluntly, we are not fully settled.
If the Commission is to become fully operational, that is to say we get our reasonable complement of staff and proper accommodation—even before our time it was suggested by former commissioners that if this commission is to become fully operational at least three of the commissioners, inclusive of the chairman, should be made full time so that the work will be done on an ongoing basis and all the bureaucratic delays that we experience between our office and the Office of the Director of Public Administration because of practical difficulties and through no fault of Office of the Director of Personnel Administration, you will find that in a short period of time, full time attention towards the restructuring much could be gained from such a move.
Again, the Secretariat is relatively new.

When that Secretariat was established as a consequence of the Mastrofski's recommendations, it was intended to run for two years with a review coming after two years.

The time has come for a review of the working of the Secretariat for the purposes of restructuring the Secretariat itself.
In the interim, although we have had inconveniences because of the location of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the legal advisors who work with us, absence of the full complement or a reasonable number of members of staff and all that, that unsuitable location of our office, it does not mean that we have not been working.

The Director of Personnel Administration recently put together an exercise aimed at team building and this is due to start on Monday coming.
First, we will have the members of the Secretariat participating, followed by key heads of departments and commissioners and perhaps it will lead to a retreat of the entire outfit—both members of the Commission and the Secretariat— and all this is intended to encourage team building at the institution.

We have some outstanding legislation.

Before we assumed office a consultant was retained to draft regulations for the commission.
I understand that work is being done on this—we had a recent feedback—but this is still outstanding.

Now everyone knows about another matter to do with legislation; with the selection and appointment of commissioner of police and deputies.

Now this exercise has been tedious, expensive and generally unsatisfactory; sometimes throwing up candidates that perhaps Trinidad and Tobago may not be happy with; but that is the process that obtains at present.
130 We have written to the Attorney General and the Minister of National Security on the matter and we have recently had a response from him.

He has decided to change the process by bringing forward relevant legislation and has invited the Commission to submit suggestions to him.

As from next week, we will be working on this.

We have also established a subcommittee of two of our fellow commissioners, who have been reviewing the format for the evaluation and monitoring exercise of the Commission.
They have concluded their report.

We have seen the report and now we intend to approach the Director of Personnel Administration to hire the services of consultants to amalgamate the existing guidelines under which the Secretariat operates, together with others that need to be put together with those existing guidelines so that we can come up with a comprehensive format that will be easy for everyone to understand.

The Appeal Tribunal so far for outstanding legislation—there is just one more.
The Commissioner of Police and the deputy commissioners have no recourse for redress in case decisions are made against them and in our document which we forwarded before the meeting, this has been brought to the attention of the Law Reform Commission and we believe this is engaging their attention.
I was about to tell you, Mr. Chairman, honourable Members, that the appeal tribunal has commenced its work under the chairmanship of His Honour Mr. Addison Khan, who as we all know is a former President of the Industrial Court and, during the course of the discussions, we have absolutely no facilities for the operation of such a tribunal.

Perhaps during the course of our deliberations here this morning, he will get an opportunity to say how he manages.
This medium-term strategic plan we made mention of in our document and in your letter of invitation, Mr. Chairman, we have not completed our strategic plan and we have started the process on our own.

We have a draft plan.


We have been hampered by staffing issues regarding administration support and so on, but my personal belief—and I am sure I will get the agreement of the commissioners on this—is that this has to be a joint effort amongst the Police Service Commission, the Commissioner of Police and there is a department we call OLEG from the Ministry of National Security.
I really cannot spell what it means; but it is one of those departments within the Ministry of National Security that came up with a plan, early o'clock, when we assumed office in July.

We feel that if we can have some kind of collaborative effort with respect to the thoughts and 131 ideas coming from these three directions, we could come up with a comprehensive plan and not necessarily confine ourselves to the medium-term plan that you have been enquiring about that will go up to, say, 2015.

Brig.
Brig.

Sandy: Office of Law Enforcement Policy.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much for those introductory remarks.

I think you have given a pretty good overlay of some of the issues we would have wanted to raise with you at this first meeting.

I want to open it up for questions from Members with regard to some of the areas you have raised and what they may want to put on the table in terms of other matters.

Brig.
Brig.

Sandy: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed, I ask to be excused from the interrogation segment, primarily because of the relationship that exists between the Ministry of National Security and the Commission.

However, I beg your leave to remain in the Chamber as it is my first experience and I think it would be a worthy one for me to remain.

Mr. Chairman: So noted, Mr. Sandy.

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: My question comes on the report.
I know you talked about the surroundings not being conducive to having people visit.

My concern is more on the HR aspect of it.

I looked at 2008 and there were 19 members of staff, 21 in 2010, but the recommendation was 42.

What have you done to get more staff on board?

Mr. Chairman: You are 50 per cent of your full complement.

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis is asking what you are doing to flesh out that complement.

Mr. Mohammed: Our DPA will respond to that.


Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: The majority of the 42 positions that were created were persons on contract.

They were initially advertised and we had engaged a consultant to do the selection process.

Coming out of this process, we had identified persons for the 42 positions and then we had to get from the CPO terms and conditions.
After the terms and conditions were set, when we thought it necessary to engage the persons to find out whether or not they were still interested, many were not because of the rate of pay set for the positions.

With the chairman's permission, I will go through some of them.

In the case of two senior attorneys who were identified, persons were found suitable and identified.
The salary as I recall for those senior attorneys was like $18,000 a month and the persons were no longer interested in being paid at that rate.

132 We have advertised the position on several occasions since then—2009, 2010, the latest advertisement being late last year.

The response to the advertisement was very minimal; nobody was interested at that rate of pay.
In the case of the Case Management Officers and the Orderly for the court and the Appeal structure, those positions we have not filled because we had asked that the appropriate amendment to legislation be made and we are still awaiting word with respect to the Law Commission for the amendment to give effect to those positions.

In the case of the Legal Research Officer and Junior Legal Officer, we had engaged two persons.
In the case of the Junior Legal Officer, we had to bring her services to an end because of some unsavory relationships at the Secretariat.

We have since re-advertised the position and we had one response and we are in the process of interviewing that person to see whether that person is suitable.

For the Junior Legal Officer, if my memory serves me right, the salary is only $9,000 and at that rate we are not attracting anybody desirable with the necessary skills and competencies for the position.
The same can be said in terms of where we have advertised the positions of Audit Analyst, Financial Analyst and those positions.

Although we have advertised and conducted interviews, no one was found suitable.

We have re-advertised, but even the response to the advertisement has been very slow.

In the case of the Research Specialist, and if we look at all the positions that have remained vacant, the story is the same.
In the case of the Communications Specialist, to which the Chairman referred previously, we had someone on contract and the person brought their services to an end because of unsavory relationships in the Secretariat.

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: We have again advertised the position, we have interviewed someone, we are awaiting the PMCD report, so that we can go back to Cabinet to have the life of the position extended, so we can engage that person.
So in all we have 19 positions that are still vacant and in most instances, response to our advertisement is minimal.

You have heard that the Chairman say, we are reviewing the structure and as much as possible.

I am of the firm view that where we have the contract positions—because the response to the advertisement have been so poorly, people have responded so poorly to the advertisement, I am of the firm view that maybe we should create permanent positions on the structure.
If in the case of the judicial officers, if we have permanent positions there, the Judicial and Legal Service 133 Commission would be able to fill those positions.

In the case of the other positions, they can be called by other names and be aligned to similar positions in the public service—in which case, the various business units within the service commission can source the person and so staff the unit.
So that this is what the Chairman spoke about when he was saying that we are reviewing the structure to see to what extent, the structure as designed, is meeting the needs of the organization.

And this is where we are at the moment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Samuel?

Mr. Samuel: Good morning everyone.

Is it possible for us to have an idea, of the period of time that the advertisements were out in the last period, and how long was it out in the media?
Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Well, I did not walk with direct figures with respect to each advertisement, but I will tell you what is the general rule what we do.

We normally advertise our position for about three weeks to a month in the ―paper‖—that is the minimal, average three weeks, to allow every person to see it, and once we get it out in the media, we advertise in all of the local newspapers.

And we run the ad on several occasion.


We also run the ad in the business supplements of the various newspapers, the Guardian, the Express and the Newsday, and that could over the period of three weeks.

Mr. Samuel: So what was the last period of—that was advertised?

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Well each of the positions would have been advertised on different occasion based on the response.
In some instances, we advertised one—maybe as late as March of this year, we had an ad out that was for the valuation specialist: we had some ads out in September: we had some ads out in July: we had some ads out in October.

In some instances, once we advertise, we look at the applicants to short-list, to see whether any of the persons made the requirement, if no one made the requirement, we go out again, in terms of ad advertising.
We have been doing the exercise repeatedly, but on each occasion what we have found, is that the salary—as what was attached to the position, it is not the kind of salary that would attract the kind of person that you are looking for.

And that is the major problem with these positions.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Sharma?

Mr. Sharma: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me also welcome members of the Police Service Commission.

I am happy to see you all.


I am familiar with some of your faces, and as a result the nation community of which I represent is very interested in your work.

And I 134 want to make a few suggestions and perhaps recommendations.

One is that you must not remain silent on issues for which you are authorized to speak and to communicate to the national committee.
The national community must know of your existence—you are not a secret lodge and every citizen must know because they have to—at one point or the other come in contact with the police service.

Recently I saw an advertisement in the newspapers—that in my respectful view, seem to criticize your membership, Mr. Chairman.

And I thought that your Police Service Commission would have taken some action.
You cannot be call to serve the nation community—and some people, some group, wherever they are, feel that they can go on the public and pay for advertisement in the newspapers, I found that very strange.

In fact, I would like to stop for 30 seconds and get some comments before I continue.

Through the Chairman, can I ask anyone of the members—all the members, did you see that ad?

Mr. Mohammed: These ads were done on a weekly basis for about five or six weeks.

One of those carried my photograph.


I did not respond to it because I was hoping that if it continues, I will have to consider taking certain steps.

I found that it was undermining, it was going beyond fair comment, on a long continuous basis.

They were very expensive ads.


The manner in which they were presented, the caricatures of fellow commissioners—most objectionable, with respect to individuals who have been appointed by the Head of State under the Constitution as an independent body to carry out certain responsibilities—under the very Constitution that are very sensitive and that have to do with matters of national security.
I do not had know what the other members did—but as I say because my photograph in the form of a caricature appeared once, I did not see it appearing again, but if it does happen in the future I intend to consider whatever action that will appropriate.

[Crosstalk] Mr. Chairman: Mr. Sharma, do you want to go on with your questioning?

Mr. Sharma: Sure, I wanted to base the other questions on that particular ad for a minute or two.

Other members have similar thoughts?


Mr. Khan: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and members.

I was very surprised that such an ad could appear for so long in the newspaper.

And I think that it is really an insulting ad, it was intended to harass member of the Police Service Commission, and the effect of that ad is that members of the public may very well be incited to attack the members of the Police Service Commission.
And I have been talking with the other four members of the commission, I have made certain suggestions to 135 them, we have not yet agreed, but I hope that we will come to some agreement on the course of action that we should take in respect to that objectionable ad.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, Mr. Sharma, any other questions?

Mr. Sharma: The members are responding to what I asked sir.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I understand, but I think we have gotten a flavour of the response.
Mr. Sharma: I am not sure, because I think that affects the work and if I am to sit in the committee of this kind I must make sure that the Police Service Commission members are protected, especially when appointed by the Head of State.

There is a responsibility of this committee as well because this is not a practice—as you correctly indicated the Commissioner Khan.

How do members of the public perceive you now, and corrective measures are going to be taken?
And the fact that the Chairman indicated that this obtained for five weeks, that was much too long for you not to respond or for you not to communicate with the Chairman of my committee to get the advice, or the input of this committee.

This committee has a responsibility.


When I was appointed a member of this committee, it was to look at a number of things and one of the things is that if we are to treat with the Police Service Commission, we must be extremely comfortable with the discharge of your duties.

Perhaps I could hear from, Mr. Parker, and the others.
Mr. Prescott SC: Before we get any further responses, I am beginning to think that—having regard to the response given by the Chairman himself—that is of the Police Service Commission—he being an attorney, he may well be thinking that there are matters of legal interest or there are legal options open to him.
And I am therefore concerned about the appropriateness of this line of inviting each member of the commission to speak to an issue that may well become more controversial by being exposed here and their own views about how they would react to it.

I am wondering whether as chair—I know you have tried diplomatically already to communicate that we have heard the flavour.

I wonder whether we could invite our colleague to desist from it.
Mr. Chairman: No, no, I think we have gotten a flavour of the matter and I think the commission might want to deal with it in its own way, if the matter is for pursuit of whatever legal action.

I think we have gotten a flavour of it.

Mr. Sharma, any other question?

Mr. Sharma: Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with that.

This committee has a responsibility as well, and I am hoping that it is not an excuse to avoid the discharge of our own responsibilities.
I 136 think that must be more fundamental because we are calling on members of the national community to serve at all levels, and a degree of protection.

You see we cannot pretend, it does not obtain, and I get the feeling that we are very close—this committee to doing that.

Because is it that members of Police Service Commission who offers himself for public service, can be treated with in the public domain, and this committee pretends it does not exist?
Mr. Chairman: Well I think we have heard your questioning and we have heard some of the comments and I think we can move on.

I appreciate your comment very much, Mr. Sharma, and that of other members of the committee but I would like us to consider moving on now to some of the other areas.

And I will ask Ms. Thomas, you had a question?

Mrs. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


If I can just go back to the report and I look at details of outstanding matters—as at December 31, 2009, and two number that stick out to me are, promotions awaiting outcome of court charges at 24, a non-appearance of police complainants at court, awaiting the part from the Commissioner of Police, 41.

I just want to ask, Mr. Chairman— through you, if these matters have been closed, and if any promotions were done as a result of the charges being closed?
It is page number 26 on the report.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the 2009/2010 report?

Mrs. Thomas: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Page 26.

Chairman, would you want your director to answer the question?

[Interruption] Okay.

Mr. Sumesar-Rai: Thank you.

The details of the information you seek is not readily available because of the arrangement between the secretariat—the Police Service Commission's secretariat and the police service department.
We rely heavily on the service commission's department to provide us with notes and information, with regards to disciplinary matters in the courts against police officers.

What the commission is requires to do is, in some instances, to take note of these matters that are in the courts, as well as to take into consideration that some disciplinary procedure will be implemented against or can be implemented against the police officers.
Generally the commission awaits the outcome of the matters in the courts and as such, the details provided here are matters that came before the commission—in some cases the commission had direct input into addressing those matters once they have been finalized by the courts.

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Thomas?

Miss Thomas: Through you, Mr. Chairman, my reason for questioning was, are there any 137 updates as regards these numbers?

Are this any reductions?


Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: May I help, with your permission, Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Sure.

Go ahead.

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: The figures appended here at (2), were the figures as a result of December 2009 and since then we would have had matters concluded and officers promoted; matters before the court and, as such, we did not walk with these figures but we can provide the figures with respect to the present status report to the Secretary of the Committee.
Mr. Chairman: Could you then send on to our Secretary some feedback— Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Yes, we can, because we would have those figures in the Secretariat.

Mr. Chairman: Can we get that within the next week or so?

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Yes, certainly.

Those figures can be provided, because this is as it was then, but we would have the present status.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ramadhar had a question?

Mr. Ramadhar: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members.
I want to congratulate you, first of all, on your appointment and I want to say publicly that to have a Chairman in the personage of Mr. Mohammed, whom I have known for many years, with the level of integrity, straightforwardness and strength and independent thought, I think that we are extremely lucky to have a Chairman, and, of course, the Members—I know a few of you and I think that it bodes well for the future of the Police Service Commission.
The one question I have is this, which may lead to other questions.

From the moment a matter comes to your attention or for your action, what is the general or average timeframe from the moment it arrives to you, to your disposition of that matter?

Mr. Mohammed: What particular matter?

I will tell you why I ask that question.


Matters come before the Commissioner of Police and you have Tribunals sitting—disciplinary matters and some of those matters come to us for sentencing when a finding is arrived at, and as soon as they come to us— Mr. Chairman: Sentencing or sanctioning?

Mr. Mohammed: Sentencing.

Mr. Chairman: Your question, Mr. Ramadhar, is it with regard to discipline?
Mr. Ramadhar: Well, now that I am hearing that there are several other areas or matters that may come, I would like to hear a listing of them.

138 Mr. Mohammed: We have disciplinary tribunals and after they would have made their findings; if they make their findings against someone who has been charged for misconduct or for whatever offence, all the papers are sent to us.

Now, invariably, we deal with that within seven days.

Now and then we may go to an additional week or so.
We deal with those matters very, very quickly.

As of now, we have no backlog awaiting attention.

Mr. Ramadhar: Mr. Chairman, through you, for the benefit of the viewing and listening public, disciplinary matters, who now has conduct of those, against police officers?

Mr. Mohammed: Initially, it would be the Commissioner of Police, but some of these matters go to the disciplinary tribunals.

In fact, most of them go to the disciplinary tribunals.
Mr. Ramadhar: Is there any idea as to if there is a backlog there?

Mr. Mohammed: We would not be able to know the workload of these disciplinary tribunals.

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: May I, Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, sure.

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: If you look at the report at (26) as at 2009 we had 13 matters pending before tribunals.

Those were the residual matters that were lying with the commission prior to the amendment of the 2006 legislation.

So they are ongoing matters.


The Commissioner of Police, from 2006 now has full conduct of these matters in terms of disciplinary control.

So those are the matters that are lying with the Commission.

Of those 13, many of them have been completed already.

So when the Chairman made reference to the fact, in terms of penalties, those are the matters concluded that were with us prior to the 2006, and we have no backlog there.
When I send for the Secretary a status report on the appendix, I will also send the status report as it relates to any outstanding matters that may still be with the tribunal.

I promise the committee they will get those figures then.

Mr. Ramadhar: I am grateful to you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman: Before we go to the next question, I just wanted to get some clarification just to add to what Mr. Ramadhar was raising.

There are disciplinary matters.


Most of them now are being handled by the Commissioner of Police from the ranks below Deputy Commissioner.

Is that correct?

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: You deal with the rank of Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and we will come to some of those questions later.

But if there is a challenge to the disciplinary action, is it 139 that it is only at that point in time that the matter comes to the Commission?
Meaning that if the Police Commissioner was to apply some sanction or some form of discipline to a corporal, or a sergeant, or an inspector and that is not challenged, would that come to you, or would it come to you in any event?

Mr. Khan: Mr. Chairman and Members, the Police Commissioner is responsible for disciplinary action and normally he would set up a disciplinary tribunal comprised of police officers to enquire into disciplinary charges filed against police officers.
When the disciplinary tribunal completes its work, it makes a report to the Commissioner and the Commissioner then decides whether any disciplinary action should be taken against a police officer.

Following the decision by the Police Commissioner on disciplinary action, the police officers have a right of appeal to the Police Service Commission, and there is in existence regulations passed by Parliament in December 2009 permitting for those appeals to be brought to the Commission.
The Commission has an appeals tribunal, as the Chairman has said in his opening remarks, and the appeals tribunal then hears and determines the appeals that have been filed against decisions of the Police Commissioner.

Appeals can be against discipline and appeals can also be against complaints of promotion, and those appeals come to us.

This Commission has appointed an appeals tribunal comprising of three members to hear and determine these appeals.
Mr. Chairman: So just to clarify, if the disciplinary action is accepted by that police officer, no information comes to you unless it is challenged via an appeal.

Is that correct?

Mr. Khan: That is correct, Sir.

Mr. Abdulah: Chairman, through you, just to continue on this issue of the disciplinary process.

Does the Commission have an idea or information about how long it takes for the Commissioner of Police to complete the exercise with respect to the disciplinary processes?
In other words, what we understand is that the Commissioner of Police would establish a tribunal—so there are two tribunals that we are discussing and we should not confuse the two.

One is the tribunal which is hearing the matter of an allegation against an officer or perhaps an issue of a promotion or some such thing like that, and it is when completed, if there is an appeal, it then comes to the Police Service Commission where there is an appeals tribunal.

So there are two separate tribunals.


What I understood from the Chairman is that when matters come to you as the Commission, within a week or thereabouts, you dispose of those matters, in response to the question from 140 Minister Ramadhar, through the Chair.

But what about the process before it gets to the Commissioner, assuming there is an appeal, of course?

How long does that take?

Are you aware, and do you have any discussions with the Commissioner of Police about that process?
Because if the process is bad and takes a long time initially, then it can create problems and challenges and, therefore, the decentralization of responsibility and authority for discipline may not necessarily be working.

Mr. Mohammed: Let me make the distinction, Mr. Chairman.

When I spoke about when matters come to us within a week or two, as soon as we sit we get rid of those.
Notes are sent to us as to the outcome of a particular matter, mostly relating to discipline, and we are asked to take certain action.

Mr. Abdulah: So, if I may, Chair, through you.

So in other words, we are now talking about two separate things.

You are not now discussing the issue of appeals of decisions by the lower tribunal that go to the appeals tribunal.

The Commission also plays a role, therefore, in finally determining a disciplinary process.

Mr. Mohammed: Yes.

Mr. Abdulah: Yes?


So perhaps we can get a little bit more clarity about that, particularly for those who are viewing and listening to the proceedings of this committee, Chair.

Mr. Mohammed: For example, there might be a charge preferred against a police officer for discreditable conduct.

A tribunal is assigned to hear— Mr. Abdulah: By the Commissioner of Police?

Mr. Mohammed: Yes, referred to a tribunal by the Commissioner of Police.
That tribunal works in tandem with the office of the Service Commissions Department.

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: No.

May I help?

Mr. Mohammed: Yes.

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Prior to 2006, we had a dual system where there were some matters delegated to the Commission of Police and he would then discipline the officers.

From 2006, he has full control, except for the residual matters that we have.
We have not been monitoring, based on the reports that have been submitted from the Commissioner in terms of his functions, the timelines that you are asking; how long it takes as a tribunal; how many hearings; how many sittings.

We have not been monitoring that.

We have just been asking for, in terms of how many matters are there before your tribunal and in terms of outcome, but we have not asked in terms of 141 the length of time that it took.

We have not gone into that.


Mr. Chairman: But don‘t you think then that that is a very elemental matter to the efficiency and effectiveness of, among other things, the disciplinary process, the timeline between the commencement of a hearing, the completion of a hearing; if an appeal takes place, the hearing of that appeal by the Commission?

I will ask that of the Chairman of the Commission.

Mr. Mohammed: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman.
Since we are in a situation where we have several avenues in which disciplinary action against individuals are being pursued, what I would—from this meeting, what I think would be appropriate is for us to have a comprehensive explanation as to the several areas where we are engaging in matters of discipline and what the procedure is, because this is part of this transition that is taking place, and we can get clarification for two purposes: one, for providing this joint select committee with the kind of information that is being sought today and; two, for us to be able to monitor, because I suspect that one of the reasons why the question is being raised is that we are talking about timeline and the timeframe within which any given disciplinary matter will take to come to some sort of completion.
For example, Mr. Chairman, if you have a court matter, it may well be that after the court matter has been completed, the Commissioner of Police may feel that departmental charges should be brought against the individual who may have been exonerated by the court of law, and that will also take—if the case takes three years before a court of law, it will take a few years before the tribunal, and then after the tribunal it comes to us.
So I think that there will be need for us to monitor the kind of time frame that these particular cases take to complete.
Mr. Chairman: Okay, I think before I go to Mrs. Cornelis the point is being made, you would want to consider as part of your own self-assessment for standards of efficiency and effectiveness, the timeliness within which matters are heard or completed at least when it comes to you, and also as you consider the efficiency and effectiveness of the Police Service in general to set some sort of standards which ought to be adhered to in terms of completing such disciplinary action.
Just for your consideration I think I am hearing that kind of questioning coming from the committee and give us some feedback over time.

Mrs. Cornelis you have a question?
Mrs. Cornelis: Yes, it is just to continue on that, because now we are talking about when it comes to your area, but I am looking in your report that you gave to us, and you are talking about the performance of the appellant functions which Member Addison Khan mentioned, and it said that the commission took a decision to commence hearing of the appeals against the decisions of 142 the Commissioner of Police, and you said that you have nine matters now being addressed and one matter has been completed; so I know you said when things come to you, you all deal with them within seven days.
Why I am asking this is that I saw this report we got was stamped on the 14th, so these nine matters then would have been dealt with.

Mr. Mohammed: I was making the distinction between work being done by the Appeals Tribunal, and matters that are referred to us from the Commissioner of Police mainly via the Office of the Director of Public Administration for us to pass sentence.

Mrs. Cornelis: Okay, just now you mentioned it could even be three years before it reaches the appeal.
How long is it then when it reaches in your domain, when you have control?

How long are these matters you estimate the duration of these matters in your control?

Mr. Mohammed: The ones in which we are asked— Mrs. Cornelis: The one you are dealing with right now, you said nine are being addressed and one has been completed.

Mr. Mohammed: Yes, I would ask Mr. Khan who heads the Tribunal to address that.
Mr. Khan: Yes, Mr. Chairman and Members those figures are to be corrected, so far we have 10 matters before the Appeals Tribunal.

We have completed three of those matters.

In two of them we have given written judgments.
Now it is difficult to estimate the time during which an appeal has to be completed, because invariably these appeals involve questions of law, and we have to give the parties an opportunity to file their written submissions which would contain their points of law, and we have to give the other side an opportunity to reply to those submissions, we do that at case management conferences, and so far we have had five case management conferences in which we have made orders for the parties to file their respective written submissions.
When those submissions come to us then we can convene a hearing and a hearing depends on how complicated the case is.

In one case that we have heard the hearing took two days and the judgment of course took about six weeks for us to write because, as you would hear, we have no facilities whatsoever for doing our work.
As the Appeal Tribunal we have no books, we have no law reports, we have to go to the court libraries in order to do research and considerable research has to be done in order to write these judgments, otherwise there is the risk always present that parties may take judicial review of our decisions so we have to be careful and we have to act like Court of Appeal; so that some matters may take less than two months, it could take probably a 143 month in order to complete and deliver a judgment.
We have several challenges.

As the hon.

Chairman mentioned, what we have to do in the Appeals Tribunal is really judicial work but we have being operating without the basic facilities.

Hearing appeals is a judicial function.

We do not have a courtroom.

We have had to borrow the facilities from the Industrial Court where we have been allocated a conference room not a courtroom.

We do not even have a note taker.


We borrowed the note takers from the Industrial Court but only recently we have been able to get the services of a note taker on an ad hoc basis.

As I said, we have no books, we do not even have a copy of the laws of Trinidad and Tobago available for us to consult and the members of the Tribunal must go to the High Court Library or sometimes to the Industrial Court Library to consult those books and also to consult the law reports.

We have no computers.


The members of the Tribunal has been using their own our personal computers.

We have no staff except we have had two dedicated clerks, dedicated and hardworking clerks, but apart from those two we do not have a bailiff, we do not have an orderly and we also need a Registrar for these appeals.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Khan, what is the composition of your Tribunal?

Who are the members of your Tribunal?

Does it vary or is it fixed?


Mr. Khan: The Commission decided to appoint a three-member panel for the time being, and I am the Chairman of that tribunal, sir.

Mr. Martin George is a member Mr. Kenneth Parker is a member.

The intention of the commission at that time was to let the Appeal Tribunal begin its work, and then later on the composition of the Tribunal could be reviewed.

Mr. Samuel: Chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Cornelis, you had a supplementary question to this?

Mrs. Cornelis: No.
Mrs. Cornelis: No.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, Mr. Samuel.

Mr. Samuel: Mr. Chairman, it saddens me to sit here and hear the challenges that you face that sort of holds you back and hinders you from executing your functions.
Added to that, I agree with Minister Sharma with regard to his concerns as to how you feel with the safety aspect of it based upon the situations of the ads that are on the table and I feel it is necessary for me to ask the Commission generally if they feel unsafe with regard to the ads that have appeared thus far and what needs to be done.
The second thing I need to ask is connected to page 10 of the report where the Commission then 144 and 5(2) talked about the period under review that the Commission continue to face several major challenges in the discharge of its responsibilities and they reiterated one or two of the incompleteness of the legislation through which the Commission most discharge its functions the entrustment of the appellate function with respect to the majority of the Police Service on the Commission as a part-time body and the unavailability of the full complement of staff for it.
I know you mentioned some of it before but also my question is, page 7 talks about there is need for a draft of new Police Service Commission Regulations and that has been in abeyance since 2007.

I would like to find out from you where are we at this point in time with all of these challenges.

How do we expect to go forward seeing that for years now these challenges exists and you still continue to exists while former Commissions have had these challenges?
How are you making out and what do you suggest or propose should be the way forward with regard to the Police Service Commission?

How close are we to new regulations?

Mr. Mohammed: This is one of the main reasons why we are having this team building effort organized by the Director of Public Administration.
If as you say these regulations have been outstanding, which is true, there ought to have been some kind of monitoring and reporting to the Commission that, ―look, these Regulations have been long outstanding.

I did not realize that it was this long outstanding‖ until we began to prepare for this meeting between the Commission and the Joint Select Committee.
I know the individual who has been retained for drafting these regulations has been identified to us and it is my intention now to find out where these regulations are, why the undue delay and give us a time frame for completing.

But you see, if it comes from our supporting staff in a timely way, then we would take decisions and the very supporting staff would be instructed to write letters and send out letters and so on, so that there can be some kind of follow-up action.
This, I must admit, has not happened and now that this particular exercise is so long overdue and so very necessary, it is my intention to follow this up as one of the matters of priority Mr. Chairman: Well, Mr. Chairman, when you do that enquiry could you advise us over the next week or two what is the intended timeline for completion of those regulations?

But I think Mr. Samuel asked you another question posed to your Commission, another question which is whether you feel unsafe.
Do you want to address that?

Mr. Mohammed: I would like other members—I will, I will.

Mr. Chairman: But very quickly.

145 Mr. Mohammed: Yes, but perhaps other members who have been affected I said my photograph was there once and I am very annoyed and upset about it.

I would like other members because their photographs have been there for about five weeks running, and no one raised it at Commission level.
I never interfered with it because my photograph was not there although there were all kinds of insinuations about my integrity and all of that.

So perhaps other members can tell you how they feel, and I will tell you how I feel as well.

Mr. Khan: Mr. Chairman, I do not feel unsafe, but I have to be more careful about my whereabouts, but that ad has not really affected the work of the Commission.

The work of the Commission has continued unabated.


We have fully cooperated with the Chairman and we have full confidence in his ability and integrity.

I think that a lot of fuss is being made without any justification and they have being propagated in the ads in the newspapers and on the print and television media, but the work of the Commission has been continuing.

We have had regular meetings and the work has not been interrupted in any way because of those ads.
Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Cheesman, do you feel intimidated in any way?

I am not picking on you.

Mrs. Cheesman: I do not feel any sense of intimidation about it, but I would not say that it is a situation that I enjoy.

I do not like to see these weekly ads especially since the picture does not look too well—but you know that is just to joke about it—not at all.
I really do not like these ads being published every week and, as a matter of fact, I have stopped looking at that newspaper just so I would not have to see it.

But to say that it has instilled any sense of, you know, discomfort with respect to safety, I could assure you, no, and I will endorse my colleague, Mr. Khan, in saying that we have not allowed that to influence the work to be a distraction to the mandate that we have.
We continue to work very hard as a team and do what we have to do and remain focused.

So that is really my contribution.

Mr. Chairman: What about you, Mr. George, anything you want to add?
Mr. George: I certainly endorse what Mrs. Cheeseman has said in the sense that, at the end of the day, this is our part of all public service, and things do happen from time to time, and we have taken a decision not to let this be a roadblock to the work that we have been appointed to do, and we intend to continue to do the work that we were appointed to do, and not allow matters such as that to prevent you from your mandate, and your responsibility to the public, and that has been our approach.
And I think it is the most sensible and level-headed approach in the circumstances.

146 Mr. Chairman: Mr. Parker, we want to hear from you.

Mr. Parker: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I also endorse the point that Mr. George has indicated.
We as a group feel it is quite important to ensure that we stick very closely to the constitutional remit of the commission, and that is where we have kept our focus and tried as much as possible not to let external factors interfere with our mandate to ensure that the remit of the constitutionally set committee continues.

Mr. Chairman: All right.

I think we have gotten past it now, the question of the unsafe.

Mr. Samuel, any other question?

Mr. Samuel: Just one statement and a question.


I recognized that the task before you is that we are asking you to fly to the moon in a little single engine Cessna because the difficulties and the challenges that you have, not having the right legislation and not being able to function to the max is a challenge, and I would really like to see that something be done to ensure that the commission has all the necessary tools and all it needs to be effective.
If we are going to ask them to be effective, we need to make sure that they are supplied.

I just wanted to say that.

Mr. Mohammed: Let me answer on that point that Mr. Samuel raised.
Let me say that my position is that in addition to doing the work of the commission which has not been hampered in any way and it is going along very beautifully, as Chairman of this Commission, I believe that I have a responsibility as head of a commission that has been appointed by the Head of State, to ensure that the integrity of that commission is preserved and defended if and when necessary.
I may find it difficult to do it all on my own if and when the time comes, if I do not get the support of the other commissioners, but my view is that you cannot have a constitutionally elected body as a Police Service Commission in Trinidad and Tobago in 2011, when we know what the crime situation is and we do not know who is next target.
When we are aware that the reality of the situation is that there are those, who for their own interest, would like to make Trinidad and Tobago ungovernable and that the police service and the Police Service Commission are desirable areas of target to destabilize, to discourage and to make uneasy, anyone who has a responsibility for national security—no matter how miniscule that responsibility may appear to be—ought to be cognizant of these factors and do not take any matters for granted.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I feel seriously threatened because I cannot understand why thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars can be spent on full page ads consistently over a five, six-week period targeting individual commissioners hoping that one commissioner may 147 break, and the ideal situation is for five commissioners to stand and say, ―Stop it!

Do not interfere with us‖.


So that would have given this country the impression that we know what we are about, we are fully confident about what our responsibilities are and we are standing firm in the face of whatever adversity that is coming along.

That is my position.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mohammed.

I want to turn back a bit.

I think we heard about this particular matter.


I want to turn back a bit to the question of resourcing because it seems to be a very critical question and first of all human resourcing.
The Director of Personnel Administration has noted that the salaries or the compensation for some reason appears to be uncompetitive as far as the senior attorney and some of the junior attorneys are concerned, but you did make a point and the point was that if those positions were shifted from contractual positions to permanent positions on the register where persons in the public service I believe could be seconded to those positions, I do not know if that is the point that you made.
But if they were made permanent positions there would be possibility of secondment if I read you correctly, do you feel that those positions will then be more quickly filled at the current levels of compensation?

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Yes, I agree with you.

I did not use the term ―secondment‖ because secondment implies something quite different.
But what I did say is that if the positions were made on the permanent establishment, we would be able to source from our existing applications, persons who have applied through the Judicial Legal Service Commission to fill positions at the level of State Council I, State Council II or Senior State Councils because all my positions in the legal unit are not positions on contact and for the most part they are all filled.

Mr. Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Chairman: Okay.

So in terms of action, what sort of action you being— Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: The first step as the Chairman alluded to is that we have to go back to Cabinet and ask the Cabinet to agree to create instead of contract positions, permanent positions on the staff establishment of the Service Commissions Department.

There is a process, of course, and we must engage the PMCD and once they agree then the note is taken to the Cabinet.

Mr. Chairman: What is PMCD?


Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: That is Public Management Consulting Division of the Ministry.

They are the ones that are responsible for position management in public service.

Mr. Chairman: And that resides where?

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: In the Ministry of Public administration.
If we are going this way and 148 the Chairman alluded to it, I would imagine by now and the next couple months we should have the positions switched from contract positions to permanent positions because once the PMCD completes its exercise, the note is then sent to the Cabinet.

Once the Cabinet agrees, we can then go out and advertise.

Mr. Chairman: So, Mr. Mohammed, is it something you intend to do in terms of switching the position from contractual to permanent positions?
Mr. Mohammed: That would be part of the overall review exercise, and I think that there is need for us to look at the way we are structured at present, all the short staff and all the problems.

But, Mr. Chairman, everything stems from accommodation Mr. Chairman: Well accommodation will be part of resources.

What is it that you intend to do in terms of accelerating this matter of accommodation?

Mr. Mohammed: I have asked one of the real estate agents to help us to locate premises.
I have asked a member of the Secretariat to speak to some other real estate agents.

The DPA was promised—and that was just a promise—that perhaps some accommodation may become available.

She has indicated to me that if it does become available, we will go to visit.

So we are actively pursuing that.

Mr. Chairman: Any other question on resources?

Mr. Prescott SC: Mr. Chairman, I have a question which is prompted by a concern that I have for the constitutional independence of the commission.
It seems to me what we are hearing, unless I misunderstand it, is that permanent appointments could be permanent appointments within the public service.

If that is so, I am timid to accept that that will not infect the Police Service Commission with a lack of constitutional independence.

The same thing could be said too for a suggestion I heard coming from Mr. Mohammed, that there should be full time appointments of commissioners.
It seems to me that if the resource question goes down that road, we may want to ask ourselves how can we preserve the constitutional independence of the commission, and I wonder whether that is a question that has been raised by the commissioners themselves.

Mr. Chairman: The question is if you have persons who are in the public service who will then fill permanent positions, whether that would compromise the independence of the Police Service Commission?
Mr. Mohammed: That has to be a matter for consideration with respect to the preservation of 149 the independence of the commission, but I believe that the suggestion has come about as a result of the difficulties that we have been facing in recruiting people on a contractual basis.
But I believe that if we have some commissioners who are full time, we advertise and we have a more aggressive approach with the assistance of the full time commissioners, the efforts of the Office of the DPA and the help of the full time commissioners, chances are we might be able to recruit sufficient numbers.

Mr. Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Chairman: Okay.

Before I go to Mr. Sharma, let me just share a thought with our members and, that is, in other commissions—I believe the Integrity Commissions and other areas you have secondment of officers to the position.

Even the registrar would be seconded from the public service.

I think the core of the independence really rests with the commissioners themselves in terms of the role they play and what is the distance they have from the Executive or any other arms of the State.
So it has worked before in other areas.

I think the verdict might be out as to how well it has worked, but there is precedent for the secondment of public officers, not at the level of commissioner.

As to the question of full time commissioners, well that is a matter that will have to be reflected upon and put forward to the right authority, but we will to discuss I think a little more.

Mr. Prescott SC: If I could just expand the discourse slightly.
It appears to me we are talking about woefully inadequate accommodation, woefully inadequately facilities, and when we compound that with the thoughts that we were hearing about where we should get our staffing from and who should have control over them, we will find that what appears to be independence now is not because somebody somewhere is controlling accommodation, staffing and facilities.

So that broader question has to be addressed by the commission themselves.
Mr. Chairman: I think Mr. Sharma had a question.

Mr. Sharma: You are correct, Sir.

Thank you very much.

I think we have had some very good discussions this far.

One of the things that came to my mind and, through you, Mr. Chairman, if the commission can provide to this committee a comprehensive list of all the outstanding requirements to conduct you r business.

When I heard from Mr. Khan, that you do not have computers, I almost went into shock.
This Government delivered 20,000 computers to our children and soon we will deliver another 17,000 or 18,000, so computers should not be an issue.

Secondly, I think it will be good for your commission to communicate to the national community.

What do we expect from you, the rules of engagement as it relates to the citizens.

That could be 150 done through appearances on the both the electronic and print media, but in a manner that communicates with all citizens, so that it is not just a one-time event.
Mr. Sharma: Thirdly, as a Member of Parliament, if I remember it correctly, anyone who threatens me in the execution or discharge of my duty, it is an offence and I am very concerned when persons in public life feel threatened.

I am sure you recognize the gentleman sitting at chair No.

22 the very distinguished Minister of National Security.

He is on my side, Sir.

As a Government we have a responsibility.


This committee has expressed its concerns and would do so for any committee that appears in this Parliament Chamber at any time.

It is a requirement of office.

Fourthly and lastly, at the same time, I would want to see that the Police Service Commission becomes user-friendly, if I can use that term.
By that I mean organizations, faith-based organizations, PTAs, business organizations, bodies in Trinidad and Tobago become aware of your existence and what is your constitutional requirement, in terms of the discharge of your duties.

This way, we can earn enormous rewards because there would be that level of comfort from the national community.

Thank you very much.


Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: I wanted to reiterate what Mr. Sharma said as well and the fact that you really need a comprehensive list of resources for us.

It is like a list, because as a committee we could put forward recommendations.

But, especially with the information, I saw each part here for each report you said you issued public information.

I am not too sure if it gets to the public and what medium you use.

Again, we are in the age of technology.


I understand you do not have computers and I heard that you do not have the law books, which is something I think could be solved really easily.

But issuing public information, making the public aware, reaching out to them and using the technology we have now, because we are trying to build this society as an information-ready society, and people not too clear on what you do and how you go about it.
There is a lot of distrust, the same way, by the public, of the Police Service Commission.

By sharing with them your functions, your roles and your responsibilities, you may get better buy-in and the trust factor build up between the police, the public and the Police Service Commission.

That is just my recommendation.

Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin: Thank you.

We are here talking to and about one of the most important aspects of our civil society.
We are talking with the Police Service Commission who have oversight over what happens generally in this Republic and I cannot understand, permit me to say 151 it and explain please, why have we not organized this body in such a way that it has all the tools that it needs to be effective?

Is there something that the body itself can do to make sure it is properly structured, properly appointed and properly equipped?

As I see, you are a group of very distinguished persons, very able.
You are also backed by a group of even—a very strong group and we are on this side overseeing and trying to partner with you to make sure that what you do is effective and efficient.

I am listening to the sounds of how understaffed, how undermanned, how you have no equipment with which to work, I am wondering where this must come from.

Must all of this not come from all of us here?

Must it not come from us, so that we can be effective?
There is nobody else, if you are creating something, to blame as much as to blame yourself, I am quite sure.

Whenever a person is effecting something, if you want something to happen, you have to make not only the thing happen, but you have to make the road.

You have to make the equipment.

You have to create the things that will make the thing happen.
I am not saying that to cast blame on the Police Service Commission, but the effectiveness and the efficiency of this entire exercise and this whole body depends on us seated here.

It is important to our nation, for this to function effectively.

For example, there are 40-something complainants who did not turn up at the hearings.

What is the reason?

Do we any scientific evaluation what is the reason people are complaining and are then not turning up?
There is something very wrong with, maybe the way we are approaching some of these measures.

I hope that after today, as we go forward, we make sure when you give the next report, it does not have all the things that say we did not have this, we did not have this, nobody gave us that, nobody gave us that, because we would have failed.

Particularly, in my case, I prefer never to fail.


If we are doing something, we have to get together and give yourselves the tools, if it means pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps and we have boots.

There are people who pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and they do not have boots.
I think we should get about the business of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago; making a better life for people, especially because we are so responsible for criminal activity in this country, which is a scourge on all of us.

Thank you, Sir.

Mr. Chairman: Chairman, you wanted to respond?

Mr. Mohammed: Yes.

Again, I must say that we understand the urgency of some of these matters that we have raised, but we have a fundamental problem and that is the one that we are working on.
If we get suitable accommodation, some of us, even though we are classified as part- 152 time, will spend more time trying to restructure the secretariat and ensure that we get a greater number of members on staff to do the work that is required.

Meeting out or reaching out to the public has always been one of our priority ideas, but we have not done sufficient to get there.

We have a division in the Commission that is called the Public Education Unit.
In the public education unit, we need to have a communication specialist full- time in order for us to organize ourselves properly to meet and treat with the public.

Not only that we as a Commission need to also interact with the rank and file of the police service.
I have discovered as commissioner, I have been working amongst police officers for the last 35 years and they feel free to come to me and express their frustrations that they are experiencing within the police service, and we need to address some of these problems.
I have had a letter, Mr. Chairman, if I may quickly make this point, or rather a copy of a letter sent to me in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, which was addressed to the Commissioner of Police by the President of the Police Social Welfare Association.

He is a sergeant of police and he is facing a Promotion Advisory Board and the ethnic composition of the board, he feels threatened.

He does not feel secure and he was asking for a review of that situation.

We have some figures here.


These are matters that we need to look at and you get the impression that we are not sufficiently mature to look at this.

You cannot hope to win the confidence of the public for the police.

You cannot hope to revive or restore the confidence of the public in the police service, if you do not have a properly structured police service.

I have some figures provided to the DPA from the Commissioner of Police, of the ethnic composition of the leadership of the police service.
Out of 10 assistant commissioners of police you do not have a single one of Indian origin.

You have three deputy commissioners, none of Indian origin.

We have one Commissioner of Police.

Senior superintendents, you have 15, all after African origin, none of Indian origin.

Happily, when you look at the figures, you see at the superintendent level, you have 21 of African origin and 10 of East Indian origin.
Since within recent times, we have been emphasizing the question of meritocracy, as opposed to seniority.

Monday coming superintendents would be writing their exams.
The better ones may move to senior superintendents and you may have a better mixture, but when those in the lower ranks have to interact with those in the senior ranks and they feel and we pretend that there is not this kind of strain in relations, particularly with the history of the police service, we cannot hope to really 153 build a police service unless these matters are corrected, and you do not approach a matter like this in an inflammatory, passionate, emotional kind of way.
Fifty per cent of this country is people of East; Indian origin and you are asking them to support the police service.

They have to provide the police service with information.

They have to feel protected by the police service and when they see the hierarchy of the police service, it is as imbalanced as is reflected in these figures, and the Chairman of the Commission intends to tackle these things, you understand why the guns are being aimed at me.
But I have a job to do and this is what I am going to do.

I intend to address this with the help of the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago.

We need the protection.

We cannot hide these matters and pretend that they do not exist.

It is either we are here to carry out our oath of service in the manner in which we took our oath.

We have to take our oath seriously and handle these matters in a very dispassionate kind of way.
These are some of the matters, when you raise them, you get all kinds—remember we have moved.

This Commission is the first one for members to be appointed, to be given their instruments of appointment.

It is the first one that has had to come to the Parliament to give the politicians the opportunity— Mr. Abdulah: That is not true.

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: That is not true.

That is actually not true.

Mr. Abdulah: That is not a statement of fact, through you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mohammed: Which one is not true?

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: We have other commissions.

Mr. Abdulah: The first commission that came before us was the Teaching Service Commission.

Mr. Mohammed: The Teaching Service Commission and we were to follow.

Mr. Chairman: No, I think what he is saying is that this is the first commission that would have had to have its appointment, in a sense determined or ratified by the Parliament, which is a different question.
Mr. Mohammed, let me just ask Mr. Abdulah to raise his question.

He had a question.

Mr. Abdulah: I would give way to my colleague, and then I would come back.

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: I was just concerned because I heard you say about Indian origin and Africa origin.

I just never liked those kinds of statements being made or those kind of classifications, especially for someone like myself, who is from all.

When you all determine that, what would you determine me?
Because if you start to classify people as East Indian or African, 154 we are running into a problem, and this is exactly as a Government what we are trying to get away from.

We are trying to go for everybody.

I have every single—so how would I have been classified in that study that you are talking about?

Mr. Mohammed: These figures provided are Africans, East Indians and Mixed, you would be amongst the Mixed.
Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: Again, some people have raised things, because in Trinidad we have Caucasians, we have Chinese, so you put them all.

I would give you an example.

My spouse actually was filling out something in Trinidad, a survey came around and they actually had, they were wrong, African, Indian, Chinese, Mixed and Other.

He asked me since when does Caucasian end up under "other" in Trinidad and Tobago?
We have to be very careful of using racial classifications and we should discourage that being used in any form of evaluation.

It is really wrong and it is offensive to people.

I do not even consider myself mixed.

I consider myself Trinbagonian.

Thank you.

Mr. Mohammed: I will be guided by this Commission.

Mr. Chairman: Chairman, hold on.

Let me ask Ms. Cudjoe to raise a question.

Miss Cudjoe: I want to support the comment just made by the hon.

Member.
Member.

I think when we start trodding along the lines of race and ethnicity we are trodding along some very sensitive lines.

It makes you ask the question, if we are trying to introduce some form of affirmative action, what makes the police service effective?
Do you think having a better mixture of East Indians and Africans or whatever ethnicities you want to come up with would make the police service do the job that it is supposed to do in a more efficient and effective manner and serve the people of this country in the way it is supposed to?

Another thing is, if people of a certain ethnicity is not applying to the police service, and they prefer to go into business or sciences or whatever, we cannot go out there and make them to so.
I think when we start trodding along the lines of ethnicity and race we are trodding along some sensitive lines here and, really, can that make our police service more effective and, if so, how?

What are your recommendations?

Are you recommending an affirmative action?

Mr. Mohammed: Affirmative action will not work in Trinidad and Tobago, and I will never advocate affirmative action.

What I will advocate is meritocracy, and this is not something that I am introducing.
This is something that I have inherited under previous commissions.

It is not the 155 first time that this matter is being raised.

We are continuing to address the matter, but we are continuing to address the matter in a way that everybody will feel satisfied about it, and it is not deliberate ploy or action on the part of anyone.

All we are trying to do is create a just and fair society.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mohammed, I think we have another member of the Commission who wants to make a comment.
Mr. George?

Mr. George: I would just like to endorse the comments of the Minister of Health on this issue, and I can state categorically that for myself, Mrs. Cheesman and Mr. Parker, I know for sure, the comments of the Chairman do not represent our views in terms of what he just said on those issues.

Mr. Mohammed: That is new to me.

Mr. Chairman: Just hold on a bit.

Mr. Mohammed: I am now discovering that.

Mr. Chairman: Just hold on a bit.

Mr. Abdulah, you wanted to make a comment.


Mr. Abdulah: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

One quick comment, because this matter has been ventilated, and then a couple of quick questions, because I think the last point made by the Chairman of the Commission about meritocracy is where we are supposed to rest.

That is what the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago states.
If there are persons who have been discriminated against on the basis of any factor, then what we expect is that the Police Service Commission in discharging its responsibilities if a matter comes before it, will determine whether or not on the basis of the facts that discrimination took place, and if discrimination did take place to take the necessary corrective action—I think that is the role—and to ensure that the Commissioner and those responsible for matters of promotion have clear guidelines which will ensure that persons are promoted on the basis of performance and meritocracy.
That is what the role of the Commission is.

The Commission cannot then determine anything outside of that.

I think that the Chairman of the Commission has to be very careful in his statements, because those statements could be interpreted by people who would like to create mischief in the society, given the sensitivity and the nature of our society, and turn it into ways that are negative for the building of Trinidad and Tobago.
The Commission's responsibility is to ensure that the system of promotions is fair and equitable and does not result in discrimination, and if discrimination takes place that persons who feel aggrieved can appeal that matter and that matter will be determined fairly by the 156 Commission.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Abdulah, just wrap up this.

I want to close this matter.

Mr. Abdulah: There is a question in relation to this that I wanted to ask— Mr. Chairman: Okay, well ask the question.
Mr. Abdulah: —in terms of the functions, with your permission.

One of the roles of the Commission is to monitor the efficiency and the effectiveness of the performance of the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioners of Police, and we did not hear anything from the Commission on that.
I think that given the fact that from 2006 the responsibility for managing the Police Service in terms of discipline and management and everything else really is with the Commissioner of Police and his executive, we would like to hear what the Police Service Commission is doing by way of monitoring the performance of the executive management and leadership of the police service to ensure that we all feel safe in Trinidad and Tobago, because it is not only those against whom threats are alleged or perceived may feel insecure.
More citizens of Trinidad and Tobago fell insecure, and an efficient and effective police service is necessary to ensure the safety and security of everyone, big or small in Trinidad and Tobago and your role in monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of the Commissioner of Police and his team is vital.

So, I would like to hear something on that.

Mr. Chairman: Just hold your thought there, because Mr. George, I want to close the loop on this particular matter.
Mr. George presumably spoke for Mrs. Cheesman and Mr. Parker, and I would just like to hear one short feedback.

What are your views?

Mrs. Cheesman: Okay, I would say that what Mr. George would have expressed is exactly my sentiments, and I did agree with what our hon.

Member there would have stated.

I did not think that it was something that we would have brought to the front at this session.
Mr. Parker: Mr. Chairman, I also feel just as strongly about that and that is the reason why I indicated earlier in my own submission that from the Commission's standpoint, we stay very, very, closely to the remit of the constitutionally set up commission and that is—I am glad to hear Mr. Abdulah‘s last comment—the business of three things: The appeal function of the commission; the responsibilities for the performance of the Commissioner of Police and his Deputy Commissioners of Police; and the monitoring of that performance and, by extension, the performance of the police service.
Now, that is such a large remit and for the constitutionally established commission trying to move outside of that is going to be a major challenge given the 157 difficulties that we already faced.

So I would much prefer to stay with that remit and focus on it.

Mr. Mohammed: What I would say is that as far as Sen. Abdulah's comments are concerned, I am ad idem with what he had said.
I think he could not have made it clearer that we use whatever powers and authority we have within the Police Service Commission to ensure that everything is fairly done and everybody feels comfortable within the police service.

I merely brought this to the attention of this joint select committee to indicate—I do not know whether—I think it is important for the country to know what I have just said.
What I also said was on Monday you will be having exams and you will be having, according to our statistics here, 35 Superintendents who will be writing the exams.

Mr. Chairman: You said that already.


I think that what you heard from Members of the Committee with regard to this matter is that the Constitution is clear on the issue of meritocracy, and as long as that issue is pursued—the issue of meritocracy—in an unbiased and extremely focused way, then the Commission will be doing the job that it is put to do.

Now, time is against us, and I want to simply touch on two areas which I would like the Commission to give some feedback on as we begin to summarize.
One is that we, as a Committee, have asked for a medium-term strategic plan to have sight of your plan.

Could you give us some feedback?

If you cannot do it now but, certainly, give us some feedback in writing over the next week as to when you intend to complete this strategic plan that you are going to implement.

Mr. Mohammed: This is the medium term strategic plan.

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

That is the first point.


The second point is that you would have touched on various areas of the legislative and regulatory adjustments, and one of which is the Police Service Commission Regulations.
The other point that came up as a recurring decimal in the Police Service Commission Report was the question of the right of appeal of the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioners of Police, in the event that they do not agree with any sanction or disciplining that would have taken place by the Commission.

I wanted to hear from you very quickly, where would this right of appeal lie outside of the current judicial review process?

Who would the Commissioner of Police appeal to?


What would you recommend if he does not agree with Commission for disciplinary action?

Mr. Mohammed: There was some confusion with respect to the Public Service Appeal Board and, apparently, that board is in abeyance at the moment, and since 2006 appeals have not been 158 heard.

We are now asking for the reinstatement of the Public Service Appeal Board.
I have seen the draft legislation with respect to this and I was invited on two occasions by the Law Reform Commission people to meet with the draftsmen and the Attorney General, and both meetings were called off because of other matters cropping up.

So that is being perused, it is just that it has been quite some time now that we have not been invited to another meeting to consider this matter of the Public Service Appeal Board.

Mr. Chairman: I am unclear.


The question I am asking is: what would be the appeal process of the Commissioner of Police?

You said there is no appeal process.

Who would he appeal to, other than the judicial review?

Let me know what the recommendations were.

Mr. Mohammed: I got it from the DPA that he will appeal to the Public Service Appeal Board.

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Prior to the amendment, all police officers had the right to go to the Public Service Appeal Board.
The new Act in 2006 removes the Public Service Appeal Board.

In addition, there were matters that were lying in the pipeline.

Those police officers have no right to appeal and the amendment that we sought must be done to reinstate the Public Service Appeal Board.
Mr. Chairman: So, the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioners of Police— Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Can appeal to the Public Service Appeal Board, and the process that would come from the regulations to be amended, we must get the amendment for the legislation first before we can then draft the regulation to define the process to be followed.
Mr. Chairman: Now, I want to wrap up this part of the Meeting and simply to summarize some of the issues that have been raised and the actions that we have asked the Commission to take.

Firstly, you raised the matter of accommodation, and we ask you to come back to us and tell us how you intend to have this hatter revolved.
Secondly, you raised the question of resources and, again, some suggestions were put forward by the DPA and, certainly, I would like to hear some conclusion as to how you intent to have this matter accelerated so that in your interest you can have the resources necessary to undertake your function properly.

We have spoken to the question of a strategic plan, and we would like to get some sort of timeline as to the completion of that plan and the implementation programme that is to be followed.
Mr. Chairman: Because I think as a Committee, we would like to see whether you are achieving the benchmarks that you yourself would have set in terms of achieving the efficiency and 159 effectiveness, which is the core of the discussion today.

You have spoken generally to the question of legislative and regulatory adjustments, and I think we have gotten some of the answers that we have sought.

And, of course, we had this rather, shall I say, explosive discussion about ethnicity and meritocracy.
I think on any day, meritocracy―this is my personal view, I am not speaking for the Committee, but I am trying to translate some of the views of the Committee.

What I heard from the Committee, as a direction or as a feedback to the Commission, on any day meritocracy must trump ethnicity, at any point and any time, and this is the charter of the Commission in accordance with our Constitution, and we would expect that the Commission would hold to that charter, unflappably.
So, I want to close off this discussion today, and to thank the members of the Commission for joining us and intimating to us, and to the national community, some of the challenges and the issues that would have to be addressed by the Commission for it to be more effective.
I have heard the comment about transition, and we are talking about a transition from 2006 or the beginning of 2007 into 2011, and it reminds me very much of the metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly; if it is not done within a certain period, it results in an endgame, and this is not what we want for the Commission.

We would like to see that transition take place at a faster clip, and that some of the issues that appear to challenge the Commission.
I think help is available from the Committee, from the Parliament and from the executive.
Get the message to the right people, and if you cannot, let us know, and we would try to get the message to the right people, so that we can get to the position where the day will come sooner rather than later, that the Commission does its job extremely effectively for the benefit of all our citizens and that our citizens, at the end of the day, the Commission in making its contribution, that our citizens at the end of the day can say that we live in a safer, more secure environment, and the Commission has done its job.
So, I thank you very much for your time and we look forward to hearing from you, and to having you back here, to see what progress has been made, in due course.

Thank you very much Commissioners, thank you very much staff of the Commission and thank you very much Members of the Committee.

I declare this session suspended.

12.03 p.m.: Meeting suspended.


160 VERBATIM NOTES OF SIXTH MEETING OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO CONSIDER AND REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND SERVICE COMMISSIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION, HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM NO.

2 AND THE CHAMBER, RED HOUSE, PORT OF SPAIN, ON FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 2011, AT 9.30 A.M OFFICIALS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Amb.
Christopher Thomas Mrs. Zaida Rajnauth Mr. Neil Rolingson Ms. Susheila Maharaj Ms. Jeanne Roseman Prof. Kenneth Ramchand Ms. Gloria Edwards-Joseph Ms. Natasha Seecharan Ms. Allison Douglas Ms. Anoushka Ramsaran Ms. Kavita Jodhan Ms. Suzette Lunch - - - - - - - - - - - - Chairman Deputy Chairman Member Member Member Member Dir.

of Personnel Admin.

Legal Adviser Snr.

State Counsel Snr.

State Counsel State Counsel II Snr.

Hum.

Res.


Advisor Mr. Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, I want to welcome you to this Sixth Meeting of the Joint Select Committee appointed to enquire into and report to Parliament on Municipal Corporations and Service Commissions, with the exception of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission.
We have already commenced our meeting as a committee, and today I want to welcome the Public Service Commission, its members and support staff to our first meeting as we are as a committee constituted.

Welcome, Chairman Christopher Thomas; Mrs. Zaida Rajnath; Mr. Neil Rolingson; Ms. Jeanne Roseman and Prof. Ken Ramchand, and to members of the support team as well as the DPA, Mrs. Gloria Edwards-Joseph.
Let me start by asking, through you, Chairman, that you introduce your team and then I will ask the members of the parliamentary committee to introduce themselves.

[Introductions] 161 Mr. Chairman: Could you introduce the members of staff?

[Introductions] Once again, welcome.

May I invite you, Amb.

Thomas to share with us some of your opening thoughts before we go questions and comments from the committee.

Amb.
Amb.

Thomas: Chairman, let me begin by expressing the pleasure of the members of the Public Service Commission, the DPA and other members of staff of the Service Commission Department here present for this opportunity to meet the Joint Select Committee, pursuant to section 66A of our Constitution.
The information requested by the JSC and submitted by the Commission covers the areas the committee requested and, when considered in conjunction with the annual report of the Commission for 2009, underscores the wider issues of human resource management within which the Commission is required to work.

It also highlights the constraints which these wider issues create through their interrelationship with the work of the Commission.

Let me give some very critical examples of these.


At the present time in the public service, there is a continuing fragmentation of the human resource management function involving terms and conditions of service, training, job evaluation, succession planning and data management.

No single one of these areas lies wholly within the remit of the Commission, yet no functional coordinating mechanism has yet been put in place to cohere these discrete, but essentially interrelated functions.
For effective and efficient delivery of human resource management, appointments and promotions must involve training.

An essential element of succession planning is the identification and sustained development of appropriate skills.

This in turn requires timely reviews and re-evaluation of resource requirements.

Every aspect of these areas must be coordinated and sustained by an effective information and document management system.

These critical areas are all managed by different public agencies.
There is, therefore, a need for a practical mechanism to engage the silo effects of these separate functions.

A single appointment can be frustrated for more than a year, if the necessary ingredients to make the appointment are not present.

The process of a single promotion can be delayed for more than a year also, if there is no candidate who meets the training or experience requirements.

The work of the Commission can accordingly, therefore, be frustrated or its decision considerably compromised.
162 The recruitment and selection functions require an interlocking relationship with all ministries.

The entire process requires the timely collaboration of all agencies involved.

One defaulting element can frustrate the completion of the process.

A case in point is the challenge by public officers to the utilization of the assessment centre methodology by the Commission.

This exercise was intended to assist the Commission in evaluating officers for the office of Deputy Permanent Secretary.
Unsuccessful officers challenged the programme.

The challenge to this programme has now run the full gamut of our judicial system, from High Court through the Court of Appeal and to the Privy Council.

This legal challenge is still going on for the last six years, from 2005 to the present day.

The Commission has been recently advised that final adjudication will take place before the end of May 2011.
The disciplinary function runs the gamut also of a number of processes and institutions, and must be handled with great care, as the challenge to any aspects of that function could lead to judicial review which could span a period of years.

Many criticisms have been levelled at the Commission for undue delays in its work.

In many cases the delays are real, but in several cases they are really procedurally systemic.
Over the years, the Commission has taken corrective actions to treat with delays, and continues to do so.

I think it is important here to indicate that the public service comprises more than 30,000 officers and approximately 1,700 matters are handled annually by the Commission.

I will give some examples of our corrective measures.

The committee has now put in place the mechanism of standing selection boards to expedite the interview aspect of the recruitment and selection process.
This is the final stage of that function, but will serve to compress and eliminate considerably certain related stages involved.

Only last week we received good news that the Cabinet had approved the funding for our proposal.

The Commission has increased its disciplinary tribunal from three to four and has directed that ex parte proceedings be done, where possible, to avoid contrived delays.
We have also increased the number of officers appointed as one-man tribunals, and we will be introducing a mediation system for minor disciplinary matters.

Through discussions with the Ministry of Public Administration, the Commission will develop an effective information system that will provide for efficient and practical data management systems for storage and retrieval, and we have embarked upon a selective review of our regulations to update and modernize our regulatory framework.
The Commission is also in 163 discussions with the Ministry of Public Administration towards a coordination of the human resource function in the public service, with the attendant overarching framework as appropriate.

On the basis of discussions with the Ministry of Public Administration, the Commission also hopes to contribute towards the development of an accountability framework and performance appraisal systems for permanent secretaries and senior managers in the public service.
May I say here that at the present time there is no adequate performance appraisal through which permanents secretaries can be assessed.

The introduction of that appraisal system will bring about a new paradigm in senior management of the public service, and must be so designed to equip permanent secretaries and senior managers for the further delegation of authority by the Commission.
The new approach to senior level accountability must, therefore, be carefully and systemically developed to achieve that objective.

The further delegation of authority will also serve to transform the Public Service Commission into a body for oversight, policy oversight, review, monitoring and representation.
The documents before you will, therefore, indicate the status of our efforts, the administrative measures in train or required to sustain our actions, our achievements, the legislative adjustments we consider necessary to advance our functions, and our outreach programmes to sensitize our stakeholders on the realities of our work.
The documents also inform of our strategic thinking and our SWOT analysis which, in the context of our constitutional mandate, will outline the GAP analyses, the areas that must be traversed, the issues that must be reconciled and the goals that we envisage to take the delivery of our services to a sustained level of efficiency.
In some aspects, our annual report for 2009 would reveal that we might have been somewhat over ambitious in our time frames of the targets we proposed, but we will make the required adjustments as they become necessary, as is the practice with medium and long-term plans and systems.
Chairman and members of the JSC, members of the Commission here today and the DPA will be pleased to elaborate on any aspect of what I have said or to answer your questions with respect to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Commission.

I thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Amb.

Thomas.


Your response was framed in the context of what 164 we as a committee would have asked of you, in the sense of, one, that we had asked you to present us with some performance report of the Commission over the last two years.

We had asked also that you address the question of your strategic planning process and what you expected to implement over the next several years to 2015.
We had asked you to touch on issues relating to regulation and legislation that you consider would be appropriate in enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of the Commission.

I thank you for giving us a broad overview of the issues and challenges as well as some of the areas that you intend to address.

I noted that in your evaluation you suggested that some of your targets were a bit over ambitious, which probably means that you did not achieve some of the targets set out in your initial game plan.
So thank you for that initial overview, and I will open up to questions now from members of the committee.

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: My concern is that I looked at the SWOT analysis that you submitted to us, and it was identified: inadequate succession planning, antiquated regulations, old job descriptions, absence of an effective computerized system.
Left on its own, you said, okay, fine, it is a new service commission and they are trying to fix these things, because you did mention that one of your biggest threats, you believed, was the threat of being substituted through being irrelevant.

That is a real threat.

My question comes: This weakness that you all have identified through your SWOT analysis, what took you so long?

I am reading here, Amb.

Thomas, that you have been the Chairman since 2004.
Neil Rolingson, you have been a member since 2003 and the Deputy Chairman, Zaida Rajnath, since 2007.

If we go back, this is the eighth year, you have been there seven years, why is it only now we are hearing you say, ―Guess what‖?

We have old job descriptions‖.

Guess what?‖ ―We have inadequate succession planning.‖ You mentioned, ―Maybe we should do cadets, maybe we should do these things.‖ My question is: What really has been the hurdle from you as the service commission implementing these things?
Why are you now telling me, ―Guess what?‖ ―We are going to take 12 months to do it?

Why was it not done in the last eight years?

Amb.

Thomas: Let me first say that we may or may not take 12 months.

As I said, our targets and time frames might have been somewhat ambitious.

We would like to hope that we can do it in this time.

The substance of the question, however, is why it has taken so long.
I think in many respects the 165 answers lie in the fact that we have a very dis-coordinated human management resource system and that the commission, as a commission alone, cannot handle these things.

We have worked with and consulted with other bodies.

Let me give an example where you asked the question about job evaluation.

This whole question rests with the Chief Personnel Officer.
We did not bring it with us here today, but there are there, at least, 35 or 40 matters that we have consistently sought to advance with her, and they remain stagnant up to this day.
Unless we have, as I tried to say, an effective coordinating mechanism that will bring together the separate elements of the human resource management, in a way that a certain amount of accountability is brought to bear when things do not happen, then we continue to operate in our own silos, and encourage others, but there is no real accountability to make it happen.
Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: You are saying that, but you are saying it is an HR issue and a management issue, but at the University of the West Indies we have HR professionals who show you how to get this done.

What really is the problem?

You are saying that you have 30 or 40 matters by the CPO, but that cannot be the reason the public service is in such a mess as it is.
I am talking about persons waiting for promotions, for such a long time they are just there; some people retire before they actually get the promotion they have been dying to get.

I was talking to member, Ms. Shamfa Cudjoe, and she was talking to me about universities offering degrees and people graduate these degrees hoping to become social workers, but the job description says, ―No, you cannot be a social worker, because we do not recognize that degree.‖ So there is all this mismatch.
My logic is: As the Public Service Commission you are vested with that authority to do it.

You say that you feel you would be substituted because you are irrelevant, but you yourself are telling me that you cannot function and get things done.

Amb.

Thomas: That may be partly an interpretation of what I tried to say.

What I am saying is that when you talk about promotions, we do have to tighten the process.

Promotions can only be effected by the Commission when all the elements are together.
We have a public service where we insist through our regulations that a number of things must be met, including performance appraisals of officers before they are promoted.

Until these performance appraisals are done, it is difficult to promote.

More than two years ago we found that Permanent Secretaries were not, should we say, as effective as they ought to have been, in terms of delivering their performance appraisal reports.
In order to speed up our promotions, and we have done so, we have had to actually establish an 166 amnesty by which we had to provide a different form through which permanent secretaries would submit performance appraisal reports.

We found that where movements have taken place from one ministry to the other, permanent secretaries found that they were not in a position to determine performance appraisal of persons they had left or new persons they had met.

We had to devise a formula to remove that backlog.


I will not say that everything lies with the Public Service Commission.

You have mentioned the question of the university and the kind of expertise that lies there, but I do not think it is a question of expertise in the first instance.

I think it is a question of coordination.


I think it is a question of providing the kind of overarching coordination with accountability that would insist that the separate agencies come together, integrate their work and provide what is required in a timely fashion.

Mrs. Thomas: I look at your action plan, and on performance appraisals for senior and middle executives you said that there would be collaboration on a design.
So is it that there is no formal appraisal system for senior and middle executives at this time?

Amb.

Thomas: There is a performance appraisal, but we do not consider it adequate.

I am going to ask the Director to take that point.

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Yes there is a performance appraisal system that reaches the level of deputy permanent secretary, but for the actual permanent secretary there is not a direct performance appraisal system.
About three or four years ago, the government approved a ministerial performance framework which, in terms of deliverables, looked at what the permanent secretary was required to do, whether the mandate of the ministry was being met.

But to what extent that ministerial framework assessed the actual performance of the permanent secretaries, the Commission had some concerns.
It was like a 360 º feedback mechanism, and for the most part you had about 50 or 60 questions to be answered, and the questions were very subjective.

You chose your assessor; the permanent secretaries chose the persons they wanted to assess them and the persons were then asked questions on the performance of the permanent secretary.

How do you think?

How do you feel?

It is not what is acceptable when you look at the ideal for performance management.
The Commission then cannot use that document to assess whether the permanent secretaries are actually managing what they are supposed to.

If you look at the function of management, you manage your core function.

In terms of the public 167 service, you manage your financial management, which is your responsibility to the Auditor General, and then you manage the HR which is responsible to the Commission.

The performance management framework as designed does not capture elements of this at all.
Mr. Chairman: So if not you the Commission, who assesses the performance of the permanent secretaries?

Is that a lacuna?

Is it a black hole that nobody does?

Amb.

Thomas: I am glad you raised that, because I was about to supplement what the Director has said, by indicating that the Commission does not and cannot assess the performance of permanent secretaries, because we are not there when they are working.
The understanding is that ministers can perform them because that creates a certain political relationship which should not be there.

We have said in our legislative suggestion that maybe the time has come to restore and to consolidate the head of the public service.

The head of the public service can work with the Public Service Commission to assess and appraise permanent secretaries in the context of their work.
Some years ago, when we went to Canada, we discovered that the Public Service Commission had devised a system where the salaries of permanent secretaries had been divided, one for normal salaries plus a 20 or 30 per cent production bonus, as the case may be.

Only when this was satisfied did they receive that production bonus.

Who determines that, if you are not on the spot to determine when permanent secretaries are managing their ministries?
Therefore we need to have a body that can meet, and we are suggesting in our legislative proposals to you that maybe the time has come to restore and consolidate the head of the public service.

That head of the public service—whether you want to call it ―Super PS‖ or otherwise—exists now, but does not perform that function, could then work in conjunction with the Public Service Commission to assess and determine permanent secretaries, otherwise we do not have that kind of proper appraisal.
Mr. Abdulah: Thank you very much to the Chair and members of the Commission for being here and sharing their projections, concerns and challenges.

Chairman of the Service Commission Amb.

Thomas, you made the point about the absence of coordination and the fragmentation in the HR management, essentially, of the public service, and you said that there was a need for coordination.
My question through you, Chair, would be: How can one achieve that, given the fact, and following my colleague, Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis‘ questions about the challenges and the fact that it was eight years, we do not seem to be getting to 168 the point now of resolving the absence or the problem of the absence of coordination?

I think certainly we would like to know how one achieves that.
We could identify the problem, and we are all very good at identifying the problems, but if we do not identify very specific implementable solutions that can be done, quite apart from your general strategic plan approach, there seems to be something at the root that needs to be addressed.

As a commission you could have a strategic plan, but if there is no effective coordination, then that plan is going to come to naught.

My question is: What is the Commission‘s view of achieving coordination?
I suppose related to that is that it may hinge around public sector reform, which had been spoken about for decades, and we do not seem to be that much closer to effecting proper public service reform.

I wanted to just hear your comments on that, because I think those things are interrelated.

Amb.
Amb.

Thomas: What I would say, Mr. Abdulah, as I indicated in my opening statement, is that the Commission is in consultation and discussions with the Ministry of Public Administration to see if we can put together the framework of a coordinating mechanism, that would be sufficiently strong and authoritative to undertake that function.

You mentioned that the question of public sector reform has been ongoing for a number of years.

You mentioned 40 years; I am not sure exactly how long it has been going.
However, in relation to what we have been doing, I think it would be wrong to assume that the fact we have not had a coordinated mechanism the Commission has been not performing.

Our reports would show that we have delivered a number of appointments, promotions and representation over the years, but this is an area that we need to tighten.

We can only tighten this in conjunction with a number of other bodies that have related functions in the field.
That body must have a certain amount of accountability to be able to call to account those persons—I hate to use the word ―delinquent‖— but those agencies that are not performing.

We cannot call into account any other Government agencies or otherwise that have responsibilities.

We can urge, we can talk, we can chat, but no one can call into account other agencies.

It has to be done in a coordinated way.


Until we find that coordinated way that must have the function, it must be one that could call persons to account, and that is fundamental in the process, so that times lines are met and decisions are taken as they should be.

Mr. Chairman: Amb.

Thomas, you have spoken about the lack of coordination, and I think you have used the word ―fragmentation‖ in your various reports.
You have the Ministry of Public 169 Administration, you have the CPO, you have the DPA, which coordinates for you, and you have the Public Service Commission, and you speak to the whole issue of a coordinating mechanism.

In your view, having spoken about it, what is the form you would recommend for this coordinating mechanism?

Amb.

Thomas: First of all I would be very hesitant to suggest any formal description of that, because it would involve other departments of Government.
We are now in consultation with the Public Administration Ministry, where a great amount of the management relies, to see whether a form could be devised, a structure could be devised.

I would not want to preempt that.

I would hope that structure, however, would have sufficient strength and purpose to drive this system.

But to say now—we have discussed it among ourselves as well; we do have some views on it, but it will be a little early to put these views out before we meet in consultation with them.
Mr. Chairman: This matter of a lack of coordination and fragmentation has been with us for a very long time.

It has impacted, of course, the efficiency, or lack thereof, of the public service, as we have heard from many commentators.

I am a bit surprised that even at this point in time we are not clear as to what form a coordinating mechanism could take.
In terms of the Parliament, we can assist in putting in place the necessary legislation or affirming the regulations, but the whole function of the organization structure and the coordinating mechanism might not be fully within the remit of the committee.
I would ask you and your Commission to consider, because you have raised it, and give the committee some feedback as to what you think this coordinating mechanism should look like and what would be the legislative and/or regulatory support you may need from the Parliament in order to give effect to this coordinating mechanism.

Amb.

Thomas: Chairman, some three years ago, may have been less than that, we were very hopeful, and I have to be careful as I speak here.
The former regime had addressed this question.

This question had been addressed by us with the former regime and a coordinating mechanism had been established by the Cabinet.

That coordinating mechanism had been placed, as far as I recall, under a Deputy Permanent Secretary operating out of the Ministry of Public Administration.

The Commission offered to participate in the build up and development of that mechanism through one of our commissioners.
That was accepted, but, of course, the effort fell when the government fell.

So, in fact, it is not really accurate to say that over the eight years nothing has 170 been done.

We have repeatedly insisted on this and repeatedly mentioned this to successive administrations, and it simply has not come to fruition.

I do not want to leave with the view to this committee that the Commission has done nothing about it.
The Commission has been pushing for this, has made its position very clear and continues to be willing to work with any inter-ministerial or other structure that would help.

We have certain insights we would like to share and to see how we can produce this.

Mr. Chairman: So you will, of course, provide us with your thoughts as to that mechanism as you give some further thought to it?

Mr. Sharma: Ambassador and members of your Commission, good morning.
You may have picked up a small degree of frustration from members on this side, because you seem to be offering absolutely nothing new.

You remind me of the Easter Bunny; once a year you get a cross on it.

What do you have earth-shattering?

What can the country look forward to; a lot of nice talk, a report that occurs every time we meet?

Something is wrong.

You come with the same plan over and over.

You had it three years ago, nothing happened; you come back again, nothing happened.
Are we going to sit in this Parliament and crystallize absolutely nothing?

Are you pleased with your Commission‘s performance?

Are the resources you are asking for, coming to you?

Your willingness to work is not enough.

It is like a young man who is willing to get married.

That is all he is interested in, he is willing to get married.

You have to start discharging some responsibilities.

You have had the good fortune and blessings of being here, not one, not twice, more than that.
At the end of the day, if you were to write, ―What are the five things I have achieved as a commission?‖—you would still be at zero, because you have really brought nothing new to this country.

We are partners in this Parliament Chamber.

The Chairman has communicated, as previous Chairmen have, that we are willing to work.

Let us hold hands and go forward.

These reports are neither here nor there.

Let us make a concerted effort.

Amb.


Thomas: Chairman, I do not want to go into too much of a history, but I think it is very unfair to say that the report is the same year to year.

I think it is even more unfair to say that the Commission has done nothing.

If one reads the report, if one looks at the mandate of the Commission, the mandate is clear.

There are four or five matters that the Commission is charged to do: promote, appoint, discipline, remove officers, transfer and confirm.
In the body of the report you would see that we have done this.

So it is not true or accurate to say that the 171 Commission has not performed.

You are focusing on one area.

We are saying, ―So that the Commission can perform better in that area, we need to coordinate these activities.‖ To say that the Commission has not performed is not accurate.

More recently, to say that the Commission has offered nothing to perform is not accurate either.
I have just said clearly that we are pleased that Cabinet has approved the funding for establishing standing committees, which will accelerate the question of promotion and appointment.
So I do believe that while we are stuck on the question of a coordinated mechanism, and I will certainly be happy to provide the Commission‘s thinking on this, there are many other areas by which the Commission can and should be judged, rather than just on the basis of not having put together a coordinated mechanism which is not entirely within its remit.

Mr. Chairman: Let me ask one question before I go to Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis.
You said that the last administration sought to provide some form of coordination under a Deputy Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Public Administration.

I am going to ask a very pointed question?

Do you think that approach was adequate?

Amb.

Thomas: No, I do not think so.

I think the level at which it was pitched in terms of its leadership, could not have provided the kind of accountability we wanted.

A Deputy Permanent Secretary cannot, in that circumstance, deal with it.
Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: As an HR professional, you mentioned the 360-degree process that you refused, which is actually the best practice approach, because it allows a person to get a total round robin assessment.

I take offence to the fact that you said, ―How could a minister assess a permanent secretary?‖, as if a minister does not have that capability.

The 360-degree process allows such to be done at all levels, her peers and her staff underneath her, as well as her minister.
So if a minister or superior should step out of bounds, the 360-degree process would identify it.

That is one thing I wanted to point out as an HR professional.

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: My second thing comes about when Mr. Sharma asked Amb.
Thomas about non-performance, and you said you do not believe that is true, but in your own report—that is from 2009—you talked about the fact that while the data indicates there was an improvement in performance over 2007 and years prior, there was a significant decline when compared with 2008 and you yourself said you are disappointed with your results of recruitment.
If I look at your figures you gave for permanent appointments, we see in 2006, 2,298 people were appointed; 2007, 705; 2008, 842; 2009, 511; it is going down, and that is what we see, it is just 172 going downwards, but yet when we say it is not performing—and people try to bring in best practices, you say no and then you go now and to try to make it political, which I have a problem with again, because you say that three years ago there was a committee appointed and a deputy permanent secretary under the Ministry of Public Administration, but that fell away when the Government fell away, so you are saying when the Government fell away, everything fell apart.
So in those three years before the Government changed, what happened then?

Were we just planning?

Because to me this sounds like when people say, ―I am going to make a cake‖ and you come up with a beautiful recipe just like your strategic objectives you have here.

You talked about coordination fragmentation, yet your strategic objectives does not even address that.

Your strategic objectives—and I want to read what you have here so that the general public would know.
It says: ―You want to fill the manpower needs of the Ministry and department in order to ensure the discharge of various services in a timely and efficient manner‖, which, to me, reads like you get from any book that I teach strategy in.
―Ensure neutrality in public service appointments; protect public officers against acts of discrimination by politicians.‖ I would like to ask you, based on this report that you have had here, did you see that from 2009 before that there were actually acts of discrimination by politicians?
You say, ―to protect public officers from other public officers; to prevent nepotism by ensuring fairness and transparency in the appointment and promotion.‖ To me, what really has happened, these strategic objectives mean nothing because the public officers are complaining against you, and you are saying your goal is to protect them from other people and the complaints I keep getting from people who say the Public Service Commission is not helping but is against you, so that is why we get confused and frustrated, because I have so much vacancies that I cannot fill, I have to go now and get contract labour for them, contract labour is three years, to get professionals to come and take a three-year contract is hard for them, because they want some more longetivity when they go to the banks for a loan, for a mortgage.
Yet you take offence when we say, what really is going on, and I do not understand so could you explain?

Mr. Chairman: If I understand your question, and there may have been a series of questions; one was, did the Commission come across acts of discrimination?

That was the first question and I think you could take it from there.

Amb.

Thomas: I did not get that.


173 Mr. Chairman: Did the Commission come across acts of discrimination, I believe it would be in terms of employment, because in your plan one of your objectives was to be neutral and to minimize or eliminate any possible discrimination.

I think that is the question that you are asking, Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis?

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: Normally objectives come from a problem you would have discovered.
So, this is an objective you have here listed as your strategic objective going forward, so I am asking you, what made you come up with that as an objective?

Amb.

Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I did say when I started, when I spoke a while ago that I wanted to be very careful when I discussed the question of other governments and their proposals—I would come to the question of discrimination which I do not think is a very difficult thing to discuss in terms of whether we discovered this.
Let me first say that you have asked—the Committee has been asked to deal with our issues, our efforts 2008—2010, and if we deal with them within that specified time we would see there are ups and downs in terms of the production, productivity and performance.

But I do not believe that the question of performance can simply be written off as if you go down one particular year that means you have not performed.
I think performance has to be judged overall in terms of how you structure and advance what you are supposed to do, and there will be faults, there will be valleys and there will be mountains in the twin peaks, so I would want to be a little careful about judging a performance or an organization by non-performing because of what you see as a decline in some areas.

We can be objective by saying that we have not met some of our targets, but that does not mean we have not performed.
The Minister talks about vacancies that we cannot fill.

I would like to say to the Minister that if she consults with her Permanent Secretary she would find that the Ministry of Health is one of the Ministries where there is a great need for the kind of qualifications to fill those vacancies.

Probably, seven out of 10 proposals that are being sent by that Ministry to fill vacancies relate to persons who are under-qualified.
We have had to comprise our decisions in the interest of the country to ensure that persons of the medical profession continue to work in areas where the job, the requirements of the CPO does not fully support your qualifications.

So that it is not just a question of not filling vacancies, it is the question of having the right kind of training, the right kind of qualifications, and in many cases they do not.

We stick our necks out as a Public Service Commission because we have a situation.
If we do not fill the vacancies you 174 do not get your doctors on your register.

If we fill the vacancies, they are not qualified and someone dies, they say the Public Service Commission has acted badly.

So, I do not believe that it is as simple a matter as saying we do not fill vacancies.
The question of discrimination—we have what is called a unit dealing with representation, and that unit when issues related to any form of what public servants might consider it to be inaccurate assessment of their levels, their performance and their function, it goes to that unit.

That unit is an overworked unit.


There are areas—I do not refer to them as discrimination, it may be that all the factors that might have been taken by a Permanent Secretary or by ourselves, people have made a lot of representation, we have a serious situation of an information vacuum, that is to say our information system is neither in the Service Commission Department or the entire public service adequate and, therefore there are areas where the information that comes up may not be always be accurate.
When persons have their own information and they have relayed this to us we have gone back and sought to get clarification and have adjusted decisions accordingly.

But I do not think, when we say to protect persons against others from discrimination we are referring to decisions taken not within the service commission as such, but taken elsewhere which may impact negatively on officers through misinformation and through all forms of other mis-performance.
But I would not want to go the road of talking about discrimination in terms of the larger issues that have plagued this body and this country for some time.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Prescott SC, you had a question?

Mr. Prescott SC: Thank you, wide ranging, but I have a number of issues.

Firstly, let me say that I am very slow to conclude that the Public Service Commission is not performing or is performing badly; the reports do not suggest that at all.
One wonders if it is your view or the view of your Commission that we ought to be looking at new constitutional arrangements that give greater management powers to your Commission rather than the limited remit that is now available; management powers which would allow you to create other management positions beneath you, one of them for example being a body that can objectively appraise Permanent Secretaries.
It might be a board of Permanent Secretaries with some professional assistance perhaps, but I would be very slow to accept any recommendation that Ministers of Government should have any say at all in the assessment of how a Permanent Secretary operates.

The barriers that the framers of the Constitution have put in place between the 175 active politician and members of the public service were done with great wisdom and should remain that way.
So one proposal I would like to put for your consideration is that you take the aggressive stance of yourself recommending, if it has not been done, how the constitutional changes can be made or, what interim measures can be taken to introduce new management structures under the hand of the Public Service Commission.

There is another area that—since I do not plan to speak to often, I might as well address now—is of concern and that is the area of discipline.
The introduction of a one-man tribunal, I am not surprise that it does not whet the appetite of permanent secretaries.
They may be trained in the management of some issues within their departments but they would either require to be more specialized training available for them—actually that is probably the proposal, that there should be more specialized training, maybe if the permanent secretaries were look upon as managers of their divisions, departments or ministries, so that they are not engaged in operational issues as they appear to be there might be a different kind of manager emerging at the top to whom disciplinary action is part and parcel of what he or she does.
I know, and I am not going to look to my left, that the court has been intervening very frequently in the business of how the terms and conditions of public servants are being managed at the level of the Public Service Commission; the Assessment Centre Exercise is one of the current test, there is a great affinity for the Assessment Centre Exercise, and I think it is workable, its problems are its introduction and how it is currently managed and I should like to see the Public Service Commission look at it and make aggressive recommendations for its implementation, but it must be that it allows for persons to be recruited at the very top levels in the public service.
I get the feeling that it is focused only on ensuring that when you get to the level of deputy permanent secretary or chief administration officer or whatever it is called, that the door is open for you above, if only you could pass the assessment centre.

I hope I am wrong about that, but if indeed you are thinking that those who become permanent secretaries and deputy permanent secretaries must emerge from within the body of the public service, maybe, you could relook at that.
The final issue is accepting that the courts' intervention or the courts being invited to intervene—I do not think the courts always want to—by way of judicial review appears to be stymieing some of the efforts of the public service, it provides guidance we know.

Once again, constitutional 176 arrangements need to be addressed.

If the courts are given very clear legislative prescription on what they can do they will sell seldom interfere with it.
The suggestion therefore is that in addressing your recommendations for constitutional change that you introduce yet another level of direct relations with public servants that allow for terms and conditions to be studies, managed, administered differently, so that the judicial review process would not always catapult what you plan to do.
Not everything that you plan to do is bad, there are some good ideas coming out, but the court maintains its position that it will have an oversight and therefore you need to consider whether you should not introduce yet another level of management that is trained to address the treatment of terms and conditions of public servants.

Amb.
Amb.

Thomas: Mr. Chairman, three things here—I am sure I speak on behalf of the Commission when I say the Commission has welcomed the suggestion that we take initiatives in looking at what might constitute Public Service Commission or a reviewed Public Service Commission in terms of management, in terms of structure.

Let me say that one of the things we are suggesting today in terms of legislative review is that permanent secretaries be given more management capacity and capability instead of supervision.
We extend that supervision to total management, which indeed, is in fact what you might call related to that, but might not have been exercised to that extent to the present time, and we are suggesting this as one of the legislative changes.

On the Assessment Centre Exercise, let me say that the intention was not to restrict this to permanent secretaries and deputy permanent secretaries.
The understanding is that since the deputy permanent secretary was a new creation, one will begin with that to determine the kinds of skills and competencies that person has or those persons should have.
When we went to Canada, I believe it was 2004, to look at the whole question of the assessment centre, the understanding was, that having introduced that in Trinidad, that level of deputy permanent secretary, we would certainly move from there to establish our own home-grown Assessment Centre Exercises, and that would permeate the entire public service.
Mr. Chairman: Chairman, if I may interject, in the Canadian system, is it correct to say that the Deputy Minister is the Head of Administration and Head of Management and that person is appointed with changes in administrations?

Amb.

Thomas: Yes, I think that is what it is.

Mr. Chairman: So what is the two different types of systems there?

177 Amb.
177 Amb.

Thomas: What we hoped to do was to establish an Assessment Centre Exercise that would permeate the entire public service, but beginning with deputy permanent secretaries.

The understanding clearly was that.

We needed to ensure that we got the right fit at all levels if we have to improve the public service.

So I certainly agree with it.

The courts have taken six years on this question.

Six years.
Six years.

I repeat that, six years— Mr. Prescott SC: I would not say the court; I would say the protagonist before the court.

Amb.

Thomas: Well, the protagonist before the court.


But in those six years the Minister of Health talked about eight years a while ago, six of those eight years that she referred to in relation to my tenure, that particular issue has in fact interfered with the whole structure of training, development, preparation and placement of offices so that when we look at time, we look at time in relation to what is taking place and how it has to be used.
In this case we are stymied in many respects because of that one decision that has still not been taken.

Mr. Chairman: I want to touch on some other issues surrounding what has already been discussed before.

In your strategic plan framework you speak to reducing the timeframe for appointments from one year to three months, can you speak a bit about how you intend to do that?

Because there is a standard reference to the public service that it is like a new Hollywood, they are all actors.
I am sure you have heard that, because I have heard it many times, and now they are starting to say it might not only be Hollywood, it might be a combination of Hollywood and Bollywood.

So, how do you intend to address this matter because it is a recurrent theme which I think Mr. Sharma raised about the length of time in addressing issues and getting issues resolved?

You have it down there, what specifically are you going to do to close that gap from one year to three months?

Amb.
Amb.

Thomas: Let me say some of our matters have been delayed because of the procedure, the systemic problem.

The question of appointments relate to a series of processes from advertisements, reception of applications, screening of applications, putting together a panel, interviewing persons and then making the selection.
What we have found at certain levels, including the interview level, is that we have to get offices from different Ministries which are only available at certain times, so at some point in the whole process there is a delay because the interview system is not as smooth as it should be.
What Cabinet has recently approved is funds for the Commission to remove that barrier that we saw in terms of the interview panels by using a series of standing panels which would be drawn, 178 not necessarily from Ministries but from persons with knowledge of public service outside of the Ministries.

These standing panels will operate year round, and therefore the level of advertisements converted into, what you might call, legitimate applications would be sent to these panels.
We will no longer have to wait until a permanent secretary says ―this officer is not capable or not readily accessible to sit on this panel.‖ The panels would be continuing so that we will reduce the systems or the different steps in the system and expedite more quickly the question of the interviews and the appointment.
There are four or five systems and processes, but this for us has been one of the more difficult ones, because permanent secretaries have other things to do, officers have other things to do, to get the right kind of person with the skills to form a panel of five to be constantly interviewing for, maybe, two, three weeks.
I remember the case that worried me tremendously when one person from the Service Commission Department had to form part of a panel to interview 350 custom officers, that took weeks and tied up permanent secretaries considerably.

We had to await their availability and offices.


Where we have our panels now, there are standing panels and once the advertisements go out and you would put in the report that applications shot up right after that and we have a lot of advertisements but we did not have sufficient interviewing panels readily available, so we are now looking at this whole process.

Mr. Chairman: Just a supplementary question related to that.
Okay, you speak to the whole question of panels, what about the initiation process in terms of preparing the advertisement?

And is there a screening process when you receive applications where there is a short listing before it comes to the interview panel?

Amb.

Thomas: You want to talk on that one?

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: I was just about to pass the answer to the Chairman.

Yes, we have a short listing process.


The ads are prepared by the Service Commissions Department and they go out and we have a closing date.

Normally we put about three weeks to a month.

If it is a matter that has to be dealt with more expeditiously, we put about two weeks and we would put a notice, if it is within, circular memorandum.
The Commission took a decision that once the ad goes out within the public service because based on regulation we must go within first, we can go outside if the numbers or the persons who have applied do not meet the requirements.

In instances where we have large numbers of applicants, over 100, the Commission has also taken a decision that we go to an exam—we also 179 have a public service examination board within the Service Commissions Department.
So we have a short listing mechanism and the team of recruitment section, because they are designed along functional areas and the recruitment section will shortlist.

More than 100 qualified persons, they are sent for an examination, and we have a job-related examination that is set by the examination board and the exam is held as quickly as we can.

Based on the results of the exams on the pass list, the Commission, in some instances will go to interview.
Where it is a position of a routine nature, what we would recommend to the Commission—and the Commission has been going along by saying it is routine—is that we would take the pass list, the pass list is then approved by the Commission as an order of merit list and persons are then selected from that list and sent out.

So, yes, there is indeed a process.


Mr. Chairman: Just not to prolong for too long, it is just from what you have described to me you could end up with a situation running for a full year again, because advertisements, if there is a specific job for which more than 100 persons qualify, are you then going to set an exam or is it a preset exam?

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: We have in the examination board a set of examiners on file and we rotate them from time to time.
Because we have been setting exams for various positions, we have past papers and the examiners meet and they are given specific timeframes in which to set the exams.

Mr. Chairman: How long does that normally take?

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Sometimes it can take, maybe, about five to six weeks setting the exams and the actual date of the examination.

If it is a large examination, of course the exams are held throughout Trinidad and Tobago.
What we have introduced to fast track the marking of the exams, taking the administrative model of the table marking, examiners are brought into the Service Commissions Department.

Based on legal advice that we have received some time ago, about a year ago, we now use retired persons to set and mark the papers, and they are brought in and given tight timelines like two weeks, three weeks to mark the paper.
We use a table marking system, so you have this chief marker and the other marker, and they mark all the papers within that specified time to try and fast track the process as much as we can.

Mr. Chairman: So, Amb.

Thomas, what you are saying is that you are confident that with the panel system that will alleviate the matter of protracted periods before someone could be appointed.

Do you feel confident that timeframe would be brought down from one year to three 180 months because of that panel system?
Amb.

Thomas: Mr. Chairman, before I answer that question I have to glance very gently to my left because one of our members has not been completely comfortable that this would certainly have the full effect it was intended.

I am confident that it will reduce considerably, not in every case do we have examinations.

In some cases the numbers are much smaller, and therefore one could go directly to screening and interviews.
So, while we have put three months, it may be three months, it could be four months, it may be two months dependent on the issues, and so I do believe that it will help and we will certainly have our panel set up.

This morning the Minister of Public Administration called to enquire about our panels and we are very happy we are going forward on this.

Miss Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


In going back to the strategic plan, and I looked at the action plan, and when I look at some of the initiatives and how very important they are to the proper functioning of the Commission and the whole service, I would have liked to see instead of timeframes, instead of like one year to two years, it would have been nice to see start times and end times.
For example, I look at one of the action items, ―proposed new regulations for discussion and implementation‖, and the target frame for that is December 2011.

Is it then safe to say that proposals have already been made and discussions are taking place for implementation by December 2011?

Amb.

Thomas: Mr. Chairman, if I am not mistaken, I stand corrected by the members of the Commission.

We have begun to collate.


We have noticed over time that certain regulations need to be updated, rather than do them singly we have now begun to collate all those actions, all those proposed changes and it is the understanding that by December we would have put together or assembled what we would call the proposed revision of these regulations.

The process in here, I stand corrected, is that when we would have done that by the Constitution we require getting the approval of the Prime Minister.
Is that correct?

Our answer to the question is that we hope to have the assembly of these—the putting together of these new revised regulations and, probably, early in the new year we would have them sent to the Prime Minister for the Prime Minister's approval.

Only at that time do they then become effective.

Miss Thomas: It seems that some of these timeframes may need to be revisited?

Amb.

Thomas: So, that originally we may have to revisit our timeframes.

Mr. Abdulah: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


One gets the sense generally, I am not now speaking 181 specifically about anything that you said this morning, but generally, that the approach to human resource management in the public service has been ad hoc, in other words, something comes up, and therefore, you need to have this particular position to deal with a particular project or activity, so my questions are related to this.
Is there, or has there been in the past—because the period your reporting actually is up to 2010— an approach to strategic planning in terms of the human resource requirements of the public service generally and, of course that therefore means the individual Ministries, departments and so on that would aggregate, make up the entire public service?

If there has not been that approach, would the introduction of strategic plans for each Ministry assist in the HR planning going forward?
In other words, if we then drill down from that, then identifying specifically what are the gaps in items of skills and resources within Ministries, and overall in the public service and then what are the training programmes that are required to ensure that those gaps are filled?
If one goes out to advertise for post A, you get 100 applicants, maybe say there are 60 persons who are qualified for that, but then for post B you may only get three applicants, because the skill basis is relatively small in that area and it does not seem to be a match there, and how do you move people from skill based that would have fitted them out for job A to train them to move them to being competent for job B?
So is there an approach by the service commission to address that kind of strategic planning?

I did not get that from your strategic plan.
I got more of some of the ―outing fire‖ type of problem-solving approach rather than a strategic approach, which I think is what is required and, therefore, identifying and enabling name people to look towards a career path within the public service and so on, and then related to that is the point made by my colleague earlier with respect to contract employment, it is of great concern to me personally, the large number of persons employed on contract in the public service, which clearly seem to have been a policy position of the last Government.
I wanted to get the service commission‘s view on the large numbers of people employed on contract and whether that is in fact weakening and undermining the public service in many different ways?
Because we have contract people alongside permanent people doing the same functions in many cases with so many different terms and conditions of employment, it also undermines in terms of career path and the fact that people may not wish to be employed on contract because other long- 182 term benefits that they would enjoy and security they do not have and a whole series of things in terms of problem areas result from such a massive approach to contract employment as distinct from very selective contract employment for jobs that perhaps could only be filled in that way.
So I wanted to get your comments both on whether it is a strategic approach, and if not, whether that would assist us in going forward and, then secondly, your view on the issue of the massive contract employment within the public service?

Amb.

Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I would like to share the responses to that with some of our colleagues here, but I want to begin by making it very clear that succession planning is a function of the employer.
The Commission cannot deal with succession planning, we can assist in the process, but it is the employer who determines terms and conditions and who determines the job evaluation and the job requirements.

It is not the Public Service Commission that does that.

Secondly, in relation to the question of ad hoc measures—we have tried to avoid that by looking—nothing is static and things change from time to time.
Even in our regulations that have been framed over years, there are areas that need to be revised.

We have taken the decision and the position of not revising things one at a time, but noting the problems and noting the departures, and then coming together and bringing together an assembly of the changes that are required.
The same way we would like to do and we have begun doing in relation to human resource management, but we have no control over the question of succession planning unless we are in consultation with Government agencies so involved.

On an occasion before this we were asked the question of contract, and again, contract is a matter of the employer.
The employer has recourse to contracts when it considers it appropriate for a number of reasons, and I do not know whether contract necessarily helps succession planning.

In fact, I do not think it does, but I do not want to go there at the present time.

I would ask the deputy chairman and the DPA whether they would supplement or say something further on this question.
Mrs. Rajnauth: Having sat on both sides of the divide as Head of the public service and now Public Service Commission, I have a better understanding of how the fragmentation in the public service, HR, affects the Public Service Commission.

When I was on the other side of the divide, my colleagues and I often blamed the Public Service Commission for all the ills affecting human resource in the public service.
Now I can understand how the Public Service Commission is really stymied in terms of performing its functions.

If I 183 look at our first strategic objective, and I could understand Madam Minister‘s sense of frustration, but I want to give some concrete examples, if I may.

Our first strategic objective talked about filling the manpower needs of Ministries and departments in order to ensure the discharge of various services in a timely and efficient manner.
Besides, what our Chairman talked about we do not have persons qualified to fill the positions.

We have the case of vacant positions which cannot be filled because the positions, though created, have not yet been classified by the Executive—the Personnel Department.

An example of this is the position of management training that was created around 2003, I believe, where we wanted to bring in graduates in management at the middle level position to strengthen management in the public service.
From 2003 to now we are still waiting for those positions to be classified, so we cannot fill those positions.

Vacant positions cannot be filled because job specifications are under review by the Executive.

We have clerk/stenographers who cannot be appointed—many, many, many—because we are waiting for some legislative amendment, so we have Hollywood acting.
We have selection of persons for a number of positions which cannot be made because of a review of the qualification experience of these officers under the equivalency clause.

I believe that Inland Revenue is affected by this.

A number of officers in Inland Revenue cannot be appointed/promoted because there is an equivalency clause; we are waiting on the Executive.

Mr. Chairman: What is that equivalency clause, could you explain?
Mrs. Rajnauth: The job spec say, ―Equivalent qualifications and qualifications.‖ Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: A job is designed by a minimum experience and training requirement.

It may start at the higher end, a degree; it may go on to talk about a diploma; it may talk about a certificate; it may even talk about passing the entry exam for the administrative class or any equivalent combination of experience and training.

How then, do you assess the equivalency clause?

It is the CPO to determine that.


Mrs. Rajnauth: A number of vacant positions cannot be filled because there is a freeze by the Ministry of Finance and the filling of such position because of lack of funds, and this is where contract positions come in.

Vacant positions cannot be filled because the compensation package offered by the Executive cannot attract qualified applicants.
Last year we did an analysis at the contract positions created by the Executive over a three-year period, previous, what we have found is that the information is here with Parliament, but I believe 184 from my memory only about 10 per cent to 12 per cent of those contract positions was related to freezing of public service positions, the rest were created, we found, because of the compensation package, because of new jobs in the public service like in the IT field where jobs change so quickly it makes sense to have contract positions.
The last one, again contract positions, because outdated job specifications cannot attract the most appropriate person for the job required.

So there are a number of factors.

Mr. Chairman: May I ask, in the reviews that you did over the past three years, you said 10 to 12 per cent of the jobs under contract would be as a result of frozen positions within the service.
Now, tell me, generally—you spoke about compensation—are these contract positions paid at a higher salary than those within the permanent establishment?

Mrs. Rajnauth: Yes, better terms and conditions.

Mr. Chairman: Is that your position, DPA?

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: No, I am not on contract.

[Laughter] Mr. Chairman: No, in terms of your assessment?

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Oh yes, I agree.

Sorry, I misunderstood.


[Laughter] Mr. Chairman: Well, as to your comment with regard to the position—the example given of management training in 2003, I think it speaks to succession planning as well and feeding the public service, have you ever been able to determine why these positions were never classified by, is it the CPO?

Mrs. Rajnauth: No, we do not know why.


We have asked for them to classify it so we could go about filling positions, badly needed positions in the public service to strengthen management.

We cannot dictate to the CPO, do it in such and such a timeframe.

Again, we come to this overarching mechanism required— Mr. Chairman: Who can dictate the CPO?

Mrs. Rajnauth: —who can hold the different agencies in the public service of the human resource management accountable.
Mr. Chairman: No, I am asking really, who is the CPO accountable to?

Mrs. Rajnauth: The Minister of Public Administration.

Mr. Chairman: So, the Minister of Public Administration.

Miss Cudjoe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Amb.

Thomas, and members of your team, good morning to everyone.

It is 11.25 a.m. now and I know that we have plans on ending this meeting 185 around midday, but I want to leave with the sense that we have accomplished something this morning.
I feel like we have been talking and one thing we have done is established that there is a problem, but I think I want to hear something more specific as to exactly what our contentious areas are and how we are going to deal with them.
Because I agree that we have had a lot of talk about general stuff, a lot of generalization and fancy words, but I really want to know how do we get this whole Public Service Commission and the whole Public Service in Trinidad and Tobago under control so we can take it to where we want to see some advancement and improvement.
What the Minister of Health would have spoken about earlier as it relates to qualification—I think one of my problems, what I have observed is that the public service is not moving with the times.
For instance the universities have introduced the Bachelor‘s Degree in Behavourial Sciences and there are a number of young people who went to school and got that qualification and trying to get jobs, now there is no job description within the public service, well especially from what I have experienced within the Division of Social Services in Tobago.
You have a lot of people coming out with this Bachelor‘s Degree in Behavioural Science who want to work as social workers or in that area and you cannot find a place to put them because there is no job description, so we need to bring that up to par.

Now, another challenge is having the necessary technology available to the public service.

I recognized in your 2009 report, one of your challenges was that you had the necessary technology in some areas but the people are not trained to use the technology.
In the area of discipline and appraisals, I think we have established a culture of mediocrity in Trinidad and Tobago, not just in the public service.

When it comes time for appraisal we stroke down the middle, satisfactory, satisfactory; everybody is afraid to say somebody has performed poor or performed well, because you have to explain why you would have taken that stance, so we have bred a culture of mediocrity in the public service, so we need to find a way to treat with that now.
Finally, you hear public servants calling for increased wages lately and I just want to know what plans that the public service have as it relates to productivity, because we cannot talk about increase—I think as an advancing society and an advancing economy, when we talk about increasing wages, which I think we need to be looking at also, we also need to look at how we are going to benefit ourselves as it relates to improvement in productivity.
As it relates to Tobago—and this is my final point—I recognized in 2009 we have established a 186 presence in Tobago, I want to know what has been your accomplishment and what are some of your challenges as it relates to public service in Tobago?
Because I think some of the problems that we have in Tobago have to be fixed on the level of constitutional reform and that kind of thing, because we have public servants in Tobago who feel that they do not have to report to the Assembly or report to their supervisors, so there are people who are actually going to work and feeling, ―I do not need to report to anybody here, my boss is in Trinidad, they do not know when I am late, they do not know when I am not performing.‖ So having a presence in Tobago is not just enough, I want to know what has been happening, what have you accomplished and what are your challenges.
That is it for now, thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman: Amb.

Thomas, you want to answer some of those?

Amb.

Thomas: I would ask the DPA to deal with Tobago, she has been very close to the ground on the Tobago question, but I would like to address the fundamental question that has been asked, how do we move forward?

We could list a number of areas.


I would say the whole question of succession planning is basic to moving forward, training, the modernization of qualifications that Miss Cudjoe spoke about, where we can introduce these into the general mill of what is required, and then the question of strengthening of management.

These are, in my view, four of the basic questions that need to be addressed if the public service as a service has to move forward.
We can only appoint and do these things after these things have been done.

We do not deal with succession planning that is an employer‘s matter.

We do not do the training.

If the people are properly trained and they have the qualification we appoint, and we have set up mechanisms that we would do this as quickly as possible.

On the Tobago question, perhaps the DPA can tell us about that.

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Miss Cudjoe, I like to brag that I am indeed a Tobagonian because I am in Tobago quite often.
We have established in 2009 an office in Tobago, so we have Service Commissions Department Tobago on Wilson Road, Scarborough, and at the moment the office is staffed with some temporary officers.

We had done for the Cabinet‘s approval, a permanent structure.

Cabinet has asked for further information and we hope soon to get the permanent structure approved for Tobago.

Needless to say, officers from Trinidad—Service Commissions Department—go to Tobago to hear the complaints and other issues in Tobago.
The DPA has been mandated by the Commission to visit Tobago twice for the month and I am in Tobago at least twice for the month with my other senior 187 members of staff to hear firsthand what the issues in Tobago are.

Some of our accomplishments since we have been in Tobago is that the office is now open and people can drop their applications in Tobago without having to come to Trinidad and wondering whether the applications are sent to Trinidad.
Interviews that normally would have been conducted in Trinidad are now conducted in Tobago.

The office in Tobago is not only used by the Public Service Commission, but is used by all the other commissions including the Teaching Service Commission, the Police Service Commission, so we go across in Tobago to meet the needs of the public officers in Tobago.
When he first went to Tobago in 2005, when we started the relationship in Tobago, we had hundreds of persons employed as clerical relief and they were on some temporary structure in Tobago.

Because of our intervention and our regular visits to Tobago we have been able to resolve the clerical reliefs officer problem in Tobago.

We have also been able, hearing firsthand from officers coming to our office in Tobago, to do many of the outstanding permanent appointments.
We are at the moment treating with the movement of the persons from the THA to the Regional Health Authority Tobago, so we are treating with those issues.

When we go to Tobago we meet first with the Chief Administrator, Tobago, who is the Head of the THA, the Administrative Head and prior to that we would meet with the PS cast in treating with the issues on the ground in Tobago.
So, we have more or less reproduced what we do in Trinidad in Tobago in terms of meeting the needs of the Tobagonian public officers and the general citizenry at large.

Mr. Chairman: I want to move to this question of delegation.

It has been a point raised with other commissions, the whole question of delegation of duties of the Commission.

I do understand that there are very significant numbers in terms of appointments that the Commission would have to fill.
Could you, Chairman, tell us a bit about the plans for increasing the level of delegation with a view to increasing the effectiveness of the Commission‘s work?

Amb.

Thomas: Mr. Chairman, maybe I could begin with 2006, where the Commission established a system, where, for the first time in the public service we took a radical departure from the practice in the past and we delegated certain functions to permanent secretaries, heads of department and deputy permanent secretaries.
We felt that was a useful practice, a useful procedure and the beginning of what we hope would continue towards increased delegation.

The performance of that so far as has been encouraging 188 but not ideal.

The report would show that it is gone up and down, but largely up, so it is moving forward in the sense that more and more is being consolidated.
That has to be backed by proper appointments to permanent secretaries, an accountability of permanent secretaries, if they are going to manage that then they must be accountable to somebody and the performance appraisal must, in fact, be done so that they understand that the exercise of that delegated responsibility or function is subject to review.
The more we move along the question of delegation of authority is the more the Commission is going to see itself transformed into, what you might call an oversight body, a review body, a monitoring body; policy would then reside with the commission to be implemented by the senior management.

The senior management has to be properly trained to do that.

We are in that process now.

We are reviewing continuously the delegated authority that permanent secretaries and heads of department now have.
We are trying to thaw-out, what you might call ―the kings‖ in the whole process so that it becomes smoother and when it does we would move forward.

Some permanent secretaries are not quite comfortable with the new responsibilities, but I think by and large it is the progressive move forward that needs to be done, and ultimately we hope that permanent secretaries and all senior management will be empowered to do those things while we oversee them.
That is one of the objectives that we see for the future as well.

Mr. Chairman: Now, you made a comment, the proper appointment of permanent secretaries, would you care to expand and tell me what you mean by the proper appointment of permanent secretaries?

Amb.

Thomas: I did not mean the letter.


[Laughs] What I mean is that if we really can get into the question of training, if for the example of our Privy Council should say that we have done the right thing and that in terms of the deputy permanent secretaries, our approach is—then we could start expanding that.
So that you would have, hopefully, as we go over the next few years a cadre of senior management that will be the appropriate fit to do the things that permanent secretaries or deputy permanent secretaries should be able to do.

They would have been equipped and capable to do those things.

Mr. Chairman: Now, in terms of—I am coming back to the question of performance appraisals for permanent secretaries.
There is a rule in management which my learned friend, Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis would tell you about, that there is a deep connect between responsibility and authority, and we have a disconnect 189 that is taking place in our system where the Minister is responsible for so many things, but the Minister lacks the authority to discipline, to provide any kind of assessment of the permanent secretary for whom, you have mentioned, there is no performance appraisal on record.
So we could have theoretically 20 to 22 under-performing CEOs working to run the country, Ministers taking the responsibility, and these CEOs do not find themselves, if you will, under the gun for performance.

In your view, sitting as Chairman of the Public Service Commission, what would be your suggestions—if not at this moment—to reconcile some of those issues of management?
We have had ongoing complaints about the effectiveness of the public service from many quarters and if this is one of the critical aspects of management, how do you hope to reconcile that?

Amb.

Thomas: Chairman, I do not have a ready answer for that.

Mr. Chairman: The DPA seems to have the answer.

Could you share it with us?

Amb.

Thomas: I will allow her or Mr. Rolingson to share it with you, but I am saying I do not have a ready answer.
What I do fear—and I tried to say this earlier—is that the reverse must be avoided as well, where Ministers assume responsibility for the policies of their Ministries; the Permanent Secretary handles the management.

I would hope that we do not go to the other extreme where Permanent Secretaries are jumping to the dictates of Ministers.

So I think we must find a delicate balance between that.

Mr. Chairman: That is what I am getting at.


I understand that there must be some insulation between politicians and persons operating in the public service, but there must be some, as you put it, delicate balance which ensures that the public gets the delivery of services that it is entitled to and that the persons who are accountable, you know, step up to the plate and ensure that they live up to their accountabilities.

That is what I am asking you.

What is that delicate balance?


Mr. Rolingson: Mr. Chairman, let me take a shot at that one.

My understanding is that every Ministry has a strategic plan or its working under a strategic plan.
My own experience—my own working experience—tells me that coming out of that strategic plan there are certain standards that are set for the company or for the division or for the Ministry and you can drill down to the last messenger, a set of objectives—measurable objectives—that would lend to the goals and achievements of the strategic plan.
I would think that Ministers, and from Cabinet too, would have an input into the plan, and arising out of that plan you would have measurable performance standards for everybody, including the 190 head of that department, and, to me, that is where the interface really takes place.

As I said, it is no mystery for me because that is how I have been managing my own performance in my working life and I do not know why the same cannot be applied to the public service.
So there is a ministerial input, not in terms of a personal interface, but in terms of determining what the measurable performance standards for everybody in the organization would be.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, that is the strategic plan, but we still have to think in terms of who does the performance appraisal for the Permanent Secretaries.
Mr. Rolingson: In our document that we have sent to you, we think that that is the remit of the head of the public service and we think that this should be a position that is concretized in the public service and some senior person is responsible for dealing with the performance appraisal, and just by extension, we are saying that the Public Service Commission has a role to play with regard to the HR responsibilities and the head of department.
Again, my own experience, I do not see a division between managing the HR and managing the other resources of the division.

So that the head of the department has certain accountabilities with regard to the management of the HR; all measurable, no personalities or any problems like that.

You have measurable performance and you answer to them at the time of the appraisal.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Abdulah, you had a question?

Mr. Abdulah: Yes.

I know that there was a follow-up to what Mr. Rolingson just said.
Two things: One is in relation to the regulations.

I know Ambassador Thomas did talk about the regulations being developed.

Now, we noted in one of the documents that you submitted to us that you had a number of retreats facilitated by a particular firm—which is not the important thing—to begin the preparatory work towards the review of the regulations and you are now going to be working, too, with an attorney to draft the regulations.
Now, these regulations, my understanding is that the regulations govern in significant ways, the operations of individual public officers, so I was wondering whether those retreats included other stakeholders outside of the Service Commissions Department and the Commission itself to, therefore, get a process of buy-in from the beginning in terms of the regulations.
And to the extent to which you had that process, was it necessary to have two retreats to do that, particularly if those retreats were limited to just the Service Commission‘s staff and the members of the Commission itself?

One would have thought that it was necessary to have many more stakeholders involved in that process to make it fulsome.

That was my question.


And the issue of 191 strategic planning that Mr. Rolingson raised, I think is important, because that is what I was driving at earlier and I do not think, with respect, Chair— Mr. Chairman: Can we allow Mr. Thomas to answer the question of regulation?

And I will come to you, because I want to make sure that he addresses that within the time frame.

Amb.

Thomas: Well, Chairman, in relation to the regulations and the retreat, the idea is that it will be expanded.
The first phase was largely in-house?

Is that correct?

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Yes.

Amb.

Thomas: And one moves from there to deal with the board of Permanent Secretaries and ultimately with, as you say, the other stakeholders.

But our DPA has been handling that, so maybe she can give you some more information there.
Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: In terms of the two retreats that we have had, we have our regulations but those regulations were promulgated in 1966 and we met with the various business units within the Service Commission to look at the regulations and to look at what are the problems and challenges in applying the regulation to our work, and from the two retreats we came up with areas that we have targeted for review and amendment.
Because before we go out to our stakeholders, we must share with them what our thinking is; what are our issues, and how we are looking at making some changes, and then hear from them what are their issues, and together we will put our concerns and their issues together and then send it to the legislative drafting person who will then redraft and review our legislation.

Mr. Chairman: What were the main findings?

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: If I may take one issue—because there are several.
I want to take the issue that the Commission is now trying to move to a system of meritocracy, and although Regulation 18 would define in terms of how we fill positions, we have about eight or nine criteria and among the criteria we have seniority.

For the most part public officers seem to think that they should be promoted mainly on the basis of seniority.
Our Regulation 26 also speaks about when an acting appointment falls to be made, as a general rule it shall be the senior officer, but it gives some bit—as a general rule suggests that you can take somebody who is not the senior person as long as you can explain why you are passing over the senior.
What we are thinking, that if we have to move the public service to meritocracy, we want to place less emphasis on seniority and maybe designed the legislation so that promotion could on a competency-based framework, identifying relevant competencies for the job and assessing persons on the basis of those 192 competencies.

So that is just taking one area that we are looking, but there are several others, of course.
Mr. Chairman: Very quickly to you, Mr. Abdulah, you were going to raise a point with strategic planning in 30 seconds?

Mr. Abdulah: Yes.
Mr. Abdulah: Yes.

With respect to strategic planning—because I concur with what Mr. Rolingson said about the importance of strategic planning, and I do not think that Ambassador Thomas addressed specifically, my comment and question earlier, because, you see, if there is strategic planning, then certainly the work of the Commission—let me put it the other way around, then; that may be easier for you to answer.
The work of the Commission ought to become easier and, therefore, I was putting it in the reverse to try to get from you a sense of whether that strategic planning approach, which has not happened in the past, would then assist in the work of the Commission, and so on, because the whole issue of filling positions, promoting and so on, will become easier if it is in the context of a strategic plan going forward.
And lastly, in relation to the issue of delegation, because it is related to that, Chair, two things: Did you get legal advice with respect to that issue of delegation to ministries?

And, secondly, if you therefore have—well, related to that, up to what point would Permanent Secretaries be responsible for appointments?

Up to what level within the hierarchy would they be responsible?
Then, thirdly—and it is related to something that the Chair raised—is that if you do not have Permanent Secretaries who are trained and capable of doing those things, then, in fact, you are going to get difficult or wrong decisions and you are going to have to pick up the problems that would arise there from, and it is related to that, that you were making the point about Permanent Secretaries and Ministers, and so on, the stronger and more capable your Permanent Secretaries, the less likely Ministers would be able to have them, according to you, jumping.
Amb.

Thomas: As a former Permanent Secretary some years ago removed, I will pass on the last statement; the question of strength of Permanent Secretaries.

I don't want to get in trouble over that— In relation to the strategy, I think it will help considerably if we have that to help the work of the Commission.

So I would say yes to that.

Legal advice, we have got legal advice.

Senior counsels have advised us.


And in relation to the delegation of authority, we have moved only in relation to the advice that we have got.

We have not moved outside of this.

What would be the level of responsibility, you said; where would we go ultimately?

193 Mr. Chairman: No.

Up to what point of appointments; what level of appointment.

Amb.

Thomas: You mean in terms of what the Permanent Secretaries will do.

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Amb.


Thomas: I have not discussed this at length with the Permanent Secretaries, but I believe we will go as—first of all, we will be dealing with positions that are specific to Ministries.

There are certain positions that are generic; they cover the entire spectrum of the public service and, therefore, in that case they will not be done by Permanent Secretaries.
But where you deal with a ministry and certain positions that are specific to that ministry, I would think they go should right up to the professional level.

I am not talking about Deputy Permanent Secretaries, but I would suggest that under that which we are dealing with, positions that are specific to the Ministries— Mr. Chairman: Are you talking about positions up to range 60 and above as well?

Amb.

Thomas: Those that are not subject to consultation with the Prime Minister.
In the Constitution there are certain positions that are subject to the concurrence of the Prime Minister.

Beneath these that are generic to ministries, yes, I would say, largely.

That is where we ultimately would want to go, but that will require, as I say, the proper kind of training and capability of Permanent Secretaries.

Mr. Prescott: A brief question.

It is prompted by a point emphasized by Mr. Rolingson.
Does the Public Service Commission when it thinks of establishing or re-enforcing the office of head of the public service, think in terms of some successful Permanent Secretary who is primus inter pares, or are we talking about a head of department, so that there is a department of the head of public service and, therefore, we do are not faced with one who has emerged from the ranks of the public service from among his colleagues as Permanent Secretary and now is triumphantly required to determine their future?
Mr. Rolingson: That is a tough one.

Primus inter pares has been trouble, but the fact of the matter is, you would want somebody who is respected by his colleagues in that post.

Now, how you will determine respect, whether it is primus inter pares, as per the Cabinet, or whether it is going to be a jefe, I really cannot answer that one.
Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: You talked about the strategic plans which all ministries have, because at the Ministry of Health we delivered ours recently, and again you said that plan would have measurable objectives by which the Minister should be able to assess, which, therefore, goes against what Mrs. Edwards-Joseph was saying.

Because what I am saying, the 360 degree, I am 194 cautioning you to look back at that process.
The 360 degree feedback actually looks at measurable objectives, so the strategic plan would feed what the Minister has to look at; it looks at your peers your colleagues and those below you, and no one has any more right than anybody else.

So it eliminates a Minister having the superiority.

It is an equal thing, and it is actually best practice, and for you all to say you rejected it, I am a bit concerned.
And your strategy, where you are doing these—this is the third meeting you are going to be having in May with Anthony Watkins, which is just the Commission and senior members of staff.

We did our strategy session and part of all these things is actually meeting, as you said, with the stakeholders, getting their point of view before you go to the stage.

So you are not even ready now to go to the stage with your lawyer you are going to engage, because you have not met with your stakeholders.
Mr. Chairman: It is 11.56 and I want to wrap up, but I will give Mr. Abdulah exactly 10 seconds.

Mr. Abdulah: Less than that, Chair; two seconds.

Given that the Chairman said that they received legal advice on the issue of delegation, perhaps, if it is not crossing protocol for the Commission to share that with the joint select committee?

Amb.

Thomas: Well, it simply says that the Commission is empowered to do that.
The Commission must be careful in the process to ensure that it can be done within certain parametres, and that is what we have been working towards.

I do not know if there is specific thing you are asking— Mr. Chairman: Okay.

I think you have given your answer.

I would like to make some closing comments.

Probably the most often discussed thing at our session today was the question of collaboration and the opposite of it would be fragmentation.
That has come out, not only in our discussions with the Public Service Commission, but it has also come out in terms of the Teaching Service Commission and the Police Service Commission.

Therefore, we do have a major problem that needs to be corrected or rectified, or else we will continue in this milieu for a number of years, because there is no overarching authority to pull all the pieces together.

So while we do take your point, Mr. Thomas, the question is, really: how do we execute as a nation?
We could continue to play the finger-pointing game without arriving at a resolution.

We have asked to you make some suggestions as the how this coordination, this collaboration, can be most effective and we look forward to hearing some suggestions from you, hopefully, shortly, over the next month or so, because I am sure your team has had a lot of time to think about this.
195 The next area that we discussed was that of delegation and I think the answer that we got with regard to delegation was that you do have the legal authority.
But you made some very interesting points with regard to delegation; that delegation can only be effected at that point in time when we are all convinced that the persons who then become accountable have sufficient training and are sufficiently capable to undertake the function which they would be required to discharge, and I think your particular reference was to the proper appointment of Permanent Secretaries.
We would await the outcome of Privy Council ruling, which I think you have said would come in May 2011, and certainly we will await to hear when that decision is made, what you next steps will be, and I hope that you would communicate to the committee the decision of the Privy Council in due course, hopefully sooner rather than later.

These are issues that continue to confront us across the Service Commissions, and I think, most important, that we find ways of arriving at a resolution.
If we do not, five years from now; 10 years from now, the players would change; the names would change, but the situation will remain pretty much the same.

So we invite your suggestions and we invite your feedback.

We are going to look at some of the comments that you have made and we will see how we can take that forward.
So, fragmentation, delegation, I think one of most critical aspects that have come out of this discussion is who does the performance appraisal for the Permanent Secretary and the question of responsibility and authority.

I would like to hear your comments with regard to how we go forward.

You have already put on the table some suggestion: the head of a public service and the head of the public service doing those assessments in the context of what were set out strategic plans, and so on.
We would like to hear more about it as we go along.

Finally, I want to thank all the members of your team: the Commission; the DPA and the staff that has given support to the questions and to the answers that you have put forward today.

I would like to thank the Members of our Committee for the questions that they have raised and the interest in seeing that we get this thing right at some point in time.
Of course, I would like to thank the media for joining us today, and I see no members of the public, except those who might be listening to us on radio or viewing us on the Parliament Channel.

Thank you all very much for your time and I hope that in due course we can find swifter and more significant progress as we go along.

Thank you.

I declare this meeting closed.

12.02 p.m.: Meeting adjourned.


196 VERBATIM NOTES OF SEVENTH MEETING OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO CONSIDER AND REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND SERVICE COMMISSIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION, HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM NO.
2 AND THE CHAMBER, RED HOUSE, PORT OF SPAIN, ON FRIDAY, MAY 27, 2011, AT 10.00 A.M. OFFICIALS OF THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES’ SERVICE COMMISSION Mr. Valentine Steve Alvarez Mrs. Sharmilla Nisha Harry Mr. Jagdeo Maharaj Mr. Darrell Allahar Mr. Ragbir Umraw Ms. Prabhawatie Maraj - - - - - - Chairman Dep.
Chairman Member Member Member Executive Officer Mr. Chairman: Good morning and welcome to our Seventh meeting of the Joint Select Committee appointed to inquire into and report to Parliament on Municipal Corporations and Service Commissions with the Exception of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission.

I want to welcome, first of all, members of the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission to this meeting.
This is our first meeting in this incarnation of the committee with you, and so let me, on behalf of our Members, welcome you and hope that we have a very productive and fruitful discussion today.

You would have been invited on the basis that we want to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the commission in carrying out its mandate, and so we would want to hear from you as we would have communicated with you before.
We would want to hear what are your issues and challenges; how have you performed over the past two years; what are your plans in terms of a medium term strategic plan out to 2015, in terms of the areas which you would like to address, to enhance, as appropriate, the effectiveness of the Commission, and of course any other matters which you would wish to raise or our committee members would wish to have clarified from you as we go forward.
I have with the commission of the committee, I am going to set aside for the time being the minutes, the confirmation of the minutes which we will do at a later stage today.

I have also received request to be excused and we have done so from Brig.

John Sandy and Miss Marlene McDonald.

197 So let me ask the Chairman of the Statutory Authorities, Mr. Valentine Steve Alvarez to make some opening comments, we will then open it up for discussion with the Committee.
Mr. Alvarez, may I ask you first of all to introduce the members of the commission, and then we will ask our committee members to make their introductions.

Mr. Alvarez: Good Morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Introductions made] Mr. Chairman: On my immediate right—I will ask others to introduce themselves—but on my immediate right is Mr. Elton Prescott SC.
[Introductions made] Mr. Alvarez: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Joint Select Committee appointed to inquire into and report to Parliament on Municipal Corporations and Service Commissions with the Exception of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission.

In response to your letter of April 01, 2011 indicated that your committee proposes to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the SASC, the commission submitted the following documents:      A review of the administrative management from 2009/2010.
A status report on the objectives and goals of the Commission.

The strategic plan to 2013.

Planned areas of implementation to 2013; and Legislative and regulatory adjustments that can enhance the effectiveness of the Commission.

Mr. Chairman, permit me to indicate the present state of the commission.

In order to do this, it may be pertinent to review a bit of the history of the commission.
In the post-independence period, in response to a demand for efficiency in the delivery of services like water and electricity, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago through various Acts of Parliament created a number of statutory authorities: WASA, PTSC, et cetera.

Consequently, there arose a need for control by the Government thus was born the regulatory machinery like the Public Utilities Commission and Statutory Authorities‘ Commission.
It was the Sinanan Report of 1965 however, a report on the system of Local Government that existed at that time that recommended the establishment of a Local Government Service Commission of the calibre, independence and integrity of the Public Service Commission.

These seem to be developments that led to the mechanisms in the Statutory Authorities‘ Act in 198 1966.

The Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission was established in 1967 by section IV of the Statutory Authorities‘, Chap.
24:01 of the Laws of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, and section IV indicates the composition of the commission and you have already met members of the commission.

Section V of Statutory Authorities‘ Act empowers the commission to appoint persons to be or act as officers and to transfer, promote and remove and exercise disciplinary control over persons who are appointed.
At present, the following 13 Statutory Authorities‘ fall under the purview of the commission, they are: The Agricultural Society of Trinidad and Tobago; the Arima Borough Corporation; The Cocoa and Coffee Industry Board; The National Lotteries Control Board; The Point Fortin Borough Corporation; The Port of Spain City Corporation; The San Fernando City Council; The St. Dominic‘s Children Home; St. Jude‘s School For Girls; St. Mary‘s Children‘s Home; St. Michael‘s School For Boys; The Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Committee and The Zoological Society of Trinidad and Tobago.
The commission regulates its own procedures with the consent of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Chairman, this commission is very new.

In fact, this commission was sworn in on the March 14, 2011 and held its first meeting on March 29, of this year.

For the period March 29 to May 24, in keeping with its legal mandate, the commission has held eight meetings to date and the commission has made nine appointments; promoted 11 persons; approved 113 acting appointments and 153 temporary appointments.
We have confirmed 10 persons, made arrangements for six secondments; six separations and taken action on three disciplinary matters and 45 other matters.

The strategic plan submitted which was completed to 2013 was an exercise that was managed by the last commission.

This commission is at present, reviewing those plans with an aim to align the initiatives of the plan with the objectives of the executive as outlined in the seven pillars of sustainable development.
Pillar one: People centered development and Pillar six: Good Governance, are directly relevant to the authorities under our purview.

This plan and its consequential areas for implementation which are outlined in table 12 of this strategic plan are currently being evaluated.

And it is our aim that this commission will have a revised strategic plan to 2015 for review by November of this year, and it is our hope that by December of this year, this plan will be accepted by the 199 Commission.
We have set a target date of December 16 for accepting this new strategic plan— the revised strategic plan.

Of great concern to this commission though, is setting realistic targets and objectives.

In such light, our Executive Officer would be reviewing the needs of the SASC with regards to staffing and equipment with the appropriate bodies among them, the Public Management Consulting Division and the Ministry of Public Administration; the Chief Personnel Officer and other stakeholders.
Additionally, this commission will seek to align its objectives with the several efforts of the executive in the area of public service reform and local government reform to arrive at some level of synergy.

Already, the process of detailed mapping of the internal operations of the commission is on its way, and this will augment our efforts to improve the quality of service offered by the commission.
Mr. Chairman, the previous commission had indicated in the 2009/2010 report, there seem to be some level of ambiguity with regard to section 60 of the Municipal Corporations Act Chap.

25:04 with regard to the SASC making regulations, specifically for classification matters regarding the Municipal Police Services.

Mr. Alvarez: This issue is the subject of a High Court Action 3133 of 2003 currently under appeal.
Since this matter is sub judice, this commission does not wish to delve in any detail regarding this issue at this time.

Instead, we simply want to bring to the attention of this committee that, here is an area where there may be need for legislation to bring clarity to this issue.

Over the next months, while the commission embarks on a number fieldtrips to gather information and interact with the authorities, we want to have a feel for what their needs are.
We anticipate that there would be areas where we may be able to focus on other legislative needs and these would also be brought to the relevant authorities at the right time.

Mr. Chairman, dare I say our vision is to be the best public sector human resource agency and our commission is to provide expert services to its clients in an efficient manner by utilizing modern best practices in human resource management for the timely and optimal placement of competent candidates.
This commission, which I am privileged to chair, is committed to this vision and mission and I am confident, that with the high quality of personnel serving this commission, we will achieve our objectives and I thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you Mr. Alvarez.

I think you have made sweeping opening remarks, so 200 that I would open it up to members of the committee for questions.
While committee members think, I would ask you probably one of the hardest questions you may have to answer today, and that is: Is the SASC relevant at all in today‘s terms?

WASA is no longer under your purview, neither is PTSC and it is my understanding that you have just about 1,500 positions under your purview when compared to the Public Service Commission and the Teaching Service Commission, where we are talking about 15,000 and above.

How relevant and useful is the SASC at this point in time?
Mr. Alvarez: It is relevant to the authorities we serve, in that we provide a service to them.

But the commission, in addressing this issue, has taken a decision that we would do field visits to all of the authorities under our purview, to have—to answer that same question, so that at the end of that exercise, we will have a better feel for the relevance of the authority, and that time we might be better equipped to answer that in a positive or negative manner.
Mr. Prescott SC: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Good morning and welcome to all of you.

This is an entirely new group, that is to say the old group having been entirely removed, so I trust that there is institutional information available to you so that you can hit the ground running although you appear to have done so because you have had eight or so, meetings.

There are three things I need to ask of you.


If, firstly, you can tell us in a nutshell or a briefly as possible, what aspects of the High Court Action that is ongoing or which is now on appeal stymies, if that is what it does, the work of the Statutory Authorities Service Commission.

Secondly, I have noted from the report which we have there already exists a strategic plan for the period 2009—2013 and I gather you are saying that you were about to do one for 2015.
If indeed the report is correct then, no doubt, you would take into account what is in that plan.

If you have not yet come across it probably you should be alerted to that fact and address it.

Then, there is in both the reports, we have the 2008—2009 and 2009—2010, a call for certain appointments within the commission itself; the appointment of human resource officers.
If that has not been addressed, perhaps, you could tell us publicly what is the likelihood of that being addressed and addressed to your satisfaction.

Finally, the calls for reform in both reports are very strident and if you have already addressed that I would invite you to let this committee know where does the commission stand on those.

Mr. Alvarez: First of all, let me deal with the High Court Action.

At this time, it has not affected the operations of the commission in any way.
It is a matter of whether there needs to be 201 some clarity, and suffice it to say, there seems to be an ambiguity between the Municipal Corporations Act, which says that the commission can set its own regulations.

In setting those regulations we are guided by—how do we tie in this, for example, with the Public Service Act, especially since we are a parallel organization and since the law applies.

The law allows us to apply the regulations of the Service Commission.
What has happened is, with the Police Service Act that has been revised there have been some changes.

For example, one of the changes would be the qualification for police officers.

I think they now have to—the police officers are now required to have five O‘levels for entry.

But, our job classification has not changed, so it remains with three O‘levels for entry and because of those differences I think it has to be clarified and that is what we are talking about.
The second thing you talked about, the strategic plan, in terms of human resource.

One of the things that the commission recognized very early was that at the SASC there is not a position for a Human Resource Officer and we felt that this is something that had to be addressed.

In discussion with our executive officer, we recognize there is a structure that has to be followed, and so we have to get the Public Management Consulting Division to come in and guide us.
I think there might also be need for some sort of job evaluation and job description.

That whole exercise will have to be completed and as such, this is something we are concerned about and that is why we brought that up.

You had a third concern?

Mr. Prescott SC: The observation in the report is that there is need for public sector reform and there seems to be some concern in your predecessor committee that the action was not happening with any sort of expedition or expeditiousness.
I wondered whether you were concerned that there needs to be reform; whether your committee has sat down and looked at it to see if there is need for reform and in what areas.

Mr. Alvarez: What I recognize in the short time that we have been there is that, previously, the previous executive was embarking on local government reform and that would directly impact the operations of the Statutory Authorities Service Commission.
At present, we are still looking at what is the impact of local government reform and what is this executive‘s vision for going forward.

That would determine what reform might be necessary.

Mr. Prescott SC: May I intervene to say that, among the things I would like to recommend is that the initiatives could come from you, as opposed to wait for it to be handed down.
202 Mr. Alvarez: That is why we have embarked on that exercise of mapping of our processes and to go out of the constraints of our physical office and go out in the field and meet the 13 authorities and see how relevant we can be and what are their needs, so that we can react to those in a relevant manner.

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis.


Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: Mines just follows up, actually on what Elton Prescott SC said, because the strategic plan I looked at and I know I saw there was one from 2009—2013.

But I get the impression that the previous commission really was looking at it like—every five years you would look at the strategic plan.

I just wanted to know if there is a plan by the new commission to evaluate this every year, so you do a proper strategic planning process.
Therefore, you get your mission and vision really in line.

I was going to go through and complain about the mission and the vision but I know it is not yours.

I am not going to attack you on that.

It is pretty generic and there is no mention actually of the human resource, which is something I see a lot is the focus of this commission.

I am a bit concerned, in terms of your acting appointments, that there seems to be a problem because I have noticed a trend.

There is a lot of acting appointments.


The same problem we have in the Public Service Commission seems to be replicating itself here.

There are many acting appointments and very few actual appointments to that position.

In looking at the municipal corporations police you mentioned again, I am seeing that at one point you all were increasing and the people were being appointed to act.
I notice you said it takes about one year for someone to even be selected to be sent on training and then it takes six months.

You know we are talking about crime and security and I do believe the municipal police have a significant role to play in the alleviation of crime, so we have to find some way to get this to work together.

One thing I saw on page five of your annual report 2009/2010 was a category called ―manipulative‖.
You had things like managerial, administrative, clerical, accounting, technical, municipal police and manipulative and I was not too sure what category of worker falls into manipulative?

If you could answer that question.

My next—I saw that you talked about in reference to Senior Counsel, the High Court.

There was a reference to a particular individual being on a seven-year suspension before you all sent him on pre-retirement leave, just pending the High Court.

For seven years, this guy was suspended.


I do 203 think that is something we really have to look at and how can we alleviate that because seven years of suspension is pretty unheard of.

Of course, I have seen a massive increase, in terms of percentages, in disciplinary matters that are coming before this commission and is something, perhaps you can address.

That is it.

Mr. Alvarez: I hope I can address each of those.


Let me start by the strategic plan, because I think that is one of the things that you are concerned about.

I think I said it in my opening statement.

One of the concerns we had when we looked at the strategic plan was how realistic is this plan, and rather than submitting something that is, just, like you said, a generic plan, we wanted to ensure first of all that there was a proper evaluation exercise of the internal and external environment.
In addition, we also wanted to ensure that there is some bit of buy in not some but definitely we have to sell this.

There has to be stakeholder buy-in and how we do that—to be effective we—for that transformation to take place, if you do not have stakeholders buy-in, then you are actually spinning top in mud.

Again, part of that evaluation exercise is to find out how pertinent is our services to the stakeholders.
And by stakeholders we are not only talking about the authorities, we are also talking about the executive and their vision and the country in general: how pertinent are our services to the country.

That exercise, we have given ourselves until November to complete.

The other concern I think you had was the municipal police.

There is the recruitment process where there is an advertisement and selection, but after that process, there is the training programme that takes some six months.
It is a six-month training programme where they are— during that six-month training programme—at the Police Academy.

That, perhaps, is the longest period that you will have in getting the police to be on the street and that is not under our purview.

There is nothing that we can do about that.

What we have done is that we have tried to make our process as efficient as possible.

This commission has been meeting every Tuesday since we were sworn in, to deal with all the matters that we face.
The other thing you talked about was the High Court Action and the seven year suspension.

Of course, we have no control over what happens in the High Court and how long justice takes to be done, it is a concern for us, but there is nothing much we can do about, it is more perhaps something that the executive may have to look at.

I think your other concern was about the manipulative, yes, manipulative would mean the cleaners, messengers, maids and porters.
204 Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: That is a new phrase that I have never heard apply to a job, manipulative category.

Is that something that is common?

Mr. Chairman: Well, it is there in the other Service Commissions when you look at the reports, there is a category called manipulative which I myself was not quite clear what manipulative was.

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: Because it would sound like these are the persons who we can manipulate.
Mr. Alvarez: No, no, it actually means persons who work with their hands.

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: Persons who work with their hands are manipulative persons?

Mr. Alvarez: Yes.

[Laughter] Mr. Chairman: Let me just add to get clarification from a question that was raised.

You said that the police service, the minimum qualification is five O levels and the requirement out of the SASC for the Municipal Police is three O levels.
Now, within your regulations can you not adjust your regulations to raise the minimum standard?

What do you need to do?

Mr. Alvarez: Well, that is precisely the issue that is being considered by the court.

That is under the purview of the Chief Personal Officer.

That officer is responsible for the job classification there is nothing we can do.

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: The only one you did not answer was the acting appointments I am hoping that the commission will actively look into that aspect.
Mr. Alvarez: The acting appointments are something that we have tremendous concern about.

Within the SASC there are persons on our staff who have been acting for over seven years, I think there are persons with more than that and they are temporary appointments.
This to me is one of the issues that you find throughout the public service, and I think it leads to some level of demotivation among persons, and it is something that perhaps will have to be addressed more holistically than within the Statutory Authorities Service Commission.

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: The reason is, it is the job title which has such a high percentage, if you look on page five in the clerical/secretarial, because I pulled the same figures from the year before just to make sure.
The year before that you had 342 acting persons in that position and then in the current year you had 249 acting for temporary 370 and then 328, and if you look at it the only persons who got appointed the next year was 22 out of all these persons who were acting, this is clerical.

So normally the only reason I know people do not get appointed is because they are not qualified, but this is clerical and then they are still acting.
205 Mr. Alvarez: Well, what I have recognized in looking at this whole thing is; that it is the way the system operates.

For example, you would have an appointed Clerk I, but that person may never work as a Clerk I for very long, they would actually be acting Clerk II in lieu of the acting Clerk II who acting Clerk III, and the Clerk III is acting as an AO and that whole process—because somebody at the upper level is on vacation, or somebody is on pre-retirement leave.
So it has that domino effect all the way down and it continues for such a long time that it has become endemic within the structure of the public service, and the solution is not as simple as something that the Statutory Authorities Service Commission can change.
Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: Mr. Chairman, if you would permit me one last question, because I always thought the Statutory Authorities Service Commission was mainly the regional corporations, it was when I came to the knowledge going through this that you are responsible for the schools for the boys and girls and what we call the orphanages, which is not the best terminology.
We have been having discussions recently in the media about the persons employed there and the scrutiny, do you all get involved in that aspect of it?

Mr. Alvarez: At this time we have already, in the short time that we have been there, we had a meeting with the curator of Zoological Society, and we have requested a meeting with the entire board of the Zoological Society, it is our intention to go to each one of those authorities to take a hands-on approach in terms of doing things.
Mr. Chairman: Okay, before I turn to Mr. Samuel, for clarification purposes you are responsible for the appointment of persons serving within the Statutory Authorities Service Commission for which you have oversight.

Who is responsible for the appointments within the secretariat that reports to you?

Mr. Alvarez: The Public Service Commission.

Mr. Chairman: The Public Service Commission?

Mr. Alvarez: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, good.

Mr. Samuel?


Mr. Samuel: I wanted to stay on the topic of the Municipal Police, what is the capacity with regards to employment of police officers at the municipal level in each of the four areas that we are talking about?

It is under your purview and under your watch, what is the capacity, what is their maximum strength and where are we with regards to their status?
Mr. Alvarez: Mr. Samuel we do not have those figures available for you at this moment, but I 206 am sure we could give you a written report— Mr. Samuel: I am asking that because, oftentimes we talk about the deficiencies and the shortcomings, but we do not have a clue of status as to what it is supposed to be as to opposed to where we are at, and what is the plan to get it to where it ought to be?
That is what I am interested in, because I see the shortcomings in most of the municipalities, I visit areas and realize that you see less and less, while we are talking more and more, so I am interested in that.

Thank you.

Mr. Alvarez: We will have those figures ready for you.

Mr. Samuel: Thank you.

Mrs. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Alvarez I see the committee has a nice mix of young, vibrant and at the same time experienced people.
Going back to that same point on the acting and temporary appointments, are there any plans in gear for this commission to review maybe an appraisal process for persons who have been appointed to act, and based on that to be eventually permanently appointed to the position?
Mr. Alvarez: One of the things that we have done as a first step in that process is to recognize the need within our secretariat to have a human resource person, and that person would take it from there and perhaps conduct whatever job evaluation, job classification exercises that may be necessary to have that adjustment made.

Mrs. Thomas: And maybe this commission could set the pace for other commissions.

Mr. Alvarez: It is our hope to do so.


Mr. Chairman: That human resource person is for the secretariat you are talking about, the persons in the secretariat?

Mr. Alvarez: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Okay.


Before I go back to Mr. Prescott I wanted to really raise the question which was set out somewhere in the strategic plan and in other places, about the quality of resources you have within the secretariat itself to undertake the work of human resource management for the Statutory Authorities Service Commission I think in the strategic plan that was raised.

Would you care to comment on the quality of staffing to do that work?
Mr. Alvarez: I would ask my executive officer, who has been with the secretariat for the last two years, to answer.

Ms. Maraj: Good morning everyone.

In terms of the staffing at the secretariat we have had 207 several proposals or several requests, because we have to liaise with the Ministry of Public Administration, that is the Public Management Consultant Division (PMCD) and we have done so, but over the years for some reason and you would have seen it in our reports we have not been able to go forward.
But we have restarted the process recently and at this point that division is doing an analysis of the organization, and we hope soon we would get a report that we can go to Cabinet with.

But nonetheless, the staff at the SASC, we have tried and we have been doing— and I might say my staff—an excellent job thus far despite our limited capacity in some instances and we have been going forward.
Mr. Chairman: Okay, but just to put some sort of timeline and some clarity on this, could you provide to the committee any feedback written or otherwise when you expect after your deliberations with the PMCD or whoever else has to do it, when you expect to have this exercise competed?
Ms. Maraj: Well, if I go through the actual exercise it may take a while, because right now we are in the consulting phase, they are coming in, we gave them all the reports, they would submit their report to me, it goes to Cabinet.

Should Cabinet approve the posts created, then we have the issue of funding, then it may go to the CPO again.
Well those are generic positions, so you may not have a classification problem and then we go back to the Public Service Commission to fill the positions, so that should take at least a year.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, so that is your answer?

Within one year.

Ms. Maraj: At least a year.

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Thomas you wanted to follow-up?

Please.

Mrs. Thomas: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


I am looking at page 12 on the organization and staffing, and I just want to bring to your attention if some of these areas that I am going to highlight can be the first thing to addressed when that HR department or HR position is appointed.

Look, for example, four of the temporary Clerk Is have been in continuous service for many years, 19, 12, 12 and seven.
Then we look at five of the temporary employees are acting in higher positions, two grades above their temporary positions.

And then five permanent officers from other agencies are acting in higher positions, and then what is of major concern to me, two permanently appointed officers each at the Clerk III and Clerk I levels have never assumed the duties of their new appointments.
So I know this would not be your responsibility, because of your management, but at least if these things could be urgently addressed as soon as that HR— 208 Mr. Alvarez: It is something that we highlighted and it is something that is getting our immediate attention and it is our hope that within the shortest period of time we will get some sort of response to this.

I think if I am correct there have already been one meeting with the PMDC, so the process has already started.

Mrs. Thomas: Okay, thank you.


Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Prescott SC: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This really taps off the very question of the staffing.

At page 14 of the 2008/2009 report it appears that there is a move towards engaging a greater number of contract officers.
And although it seems that the report is taking the position that it is Ministry of Local Government that would take the responsibility, I should like to draw your attention to it against the background of what has just been pointed out to you at page 12 of the 2010 report, and invite you to determine early whether it is proposed that you should continue to introduce contract positions into the establishments of these many corporations or not.
The Minister of Local Government no doubt will tell you how he is thinking, and I trust that that has been already done, if it has not been done today might be a good day.

Could you tell us, is it intended that contract positions is going to be the way to go?
Ms. Maraj: Actually the page and the section to which you are referring deals with again Local Government reform, when the Bill was laid in the House, I think last year or year before, it was intended that persons employed with the Municipal Corporations would be hired on contract.

So it is not the secretariat of the commission, this dealt with the staff at Municipal Corporations.
So as you would have seen they had said from the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), across the board would have been hired on contract and the Ministry of Local Government would have had that responsibility of hiring these persons.

So as Mr. Alvarez had said before, that we do not to know for sure in what direction the Ministry of Local Government reform is going in this point in time, and we have been trying to find out that.

Mr. Prescott, SC: We are here to find out.

The opportunity is presented today.


Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin: I want to ask a question about the people who have retired—compulsory retirement, voluntary retirement, retirement with permission, retirement on medical grounds.

Do you have several people, maybe, who have retired in acting positions?

[Interruption] [Starts over] When I look at the compulsory retirements, voluntary retirements, retirements with permission, retirements on medical grounds, I see you have quite a few of those.
Do you have people in that 209 group who have retired in acting positions and have had to go back to substantive posts after many years of service and have had to be retired on a minimal pension because of that situation?

Ms. Maraj: As far as we aware, there has been some change to the Pensions Act and there are certain preconditions that could be met for these acting officers.
From what I recall, if you are acting in a position for three years and you retire compulsorily, then you will be entitled to that salary in the acting position; but you must retire compulsorily; not voluntary.

Compulsorily means that you have attained the age of 60.

Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin: Do you have a group of people who have been so disadvantaged?

Ms. Maraj: In terms of their benefits?

Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin: Yes.


In terms of the fact that they have been acting how many ever years; they retire and they get a very small pension because of it, although they had acted.

Ms. Maraj: Just one clarification.

Are we thinking about the secretariat staff or the staff of the Authorities?

Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin: Any staff at all; anybody who is hired.

Remember we have a huge acting portfolio here; we have for 2007 and 2,008; 506 and 781 people acting.
Ms. Maraj: In terms of the payment of the pension benefits, the Authorities are responsible for the payment of the pension benefits, but I do not have a figure in terms of how many persons are so affected.

Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin: But you understand what I am talking about.

Ms. Maraj: Yes, I understand.

Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin: The corollary is that, to take over from Miss Thomas‘ point, we have to make sure people are appointed even though there is that pull and push at the top.
I think there might be a gap in how many people are affected by the pull and push alone and how many are affected by the fact that perhaps we are appointing too slowly.

Mr. Alvarez: We have not done an exercise to determine how many people are affected that way.

What is important to note is where our purview is in terms of appointments, promotions, secondments and those different things?

When it comes to paying people and pensions and all that, those fall under the Authorities.
We do not get involved in that.

I understand your concern and if this Committee requires statistics in that regard, we will be only too happy to supply you with that.

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin, could you clarify that question?

You wanted to know, in 210 terms of pensionable benefits, the persons who would be affected in the Secretariat or under the purview of the SASC.

The Secretariat is under the purview of the Public Service Commission.
Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin: I am making a general statement as well as a specific.

It is a situation that we have found in many of the service commissions.

Many people are acting almost indefinitely.

If I can make an example of my Ministry, I have, in the senior staff, only three permanent people; everybody else has been acting for many, many years.

Many people have retired and have had to revert to their substantive and have had to go home with a small pension.
Some people have been up to $24,000 a month and gone home with a pension of $6,000.

Mr. Chairman: I am trying to ascertain what we are asking them to provide feedback to the committee on.

Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin: I am asking if there is any way that, when you do your promotions or appointments, that you do them in such a timely manner that people are not acting, acting, regardless of the fact.

I am also taking into account the fact that there is a pull at the top if somebody is on leave.
I understand that, but I am saying that maybe there is some other way to make sure that so many people are not acting all the time.

That is just a concern I have.

Mr. Alvarez: And it is a concern that we share at the Commission.

Unfortunately, as it stands at the moment, we can only appoint persons once there is a vacancy.
In dealing with that issue, it is not only an issue for the SASC, but for the entire public service and one of the things I think can be considered is how long someone is to act in a position.
Just thinking without the consultation of the rest of my Commission, I would think that one of the possible solutions could be that after someone has acted—it is not something that someone can do in terms of the general public service—in a position for three or four years, there should be a cut- off point and the person appointed, regardless of the fact that they may be there in lieu of someone else.

That is not something we have the authority to do.


Mr. Abdulah: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue this a little more because I am a little confused by the response of the Chairman.

If someone is appointed to act, it would seem to me that there was, in fact, a vacant position in which a person was appointed to act.

How do you appoint someone to act in a position that does not exist?

Could you clarify that first?

I have some others after that, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Alvarez: I thought I indicated earlier the domino effect that exists within the public service.

For example, a Clerk I is acting Clerk II because the Clerk II is acting the Clerk III because that 211 person in the upper level is either on leave, suspension or pre-retirement leave and those things, but they still hold the substantive post.

Because they occupy the substantive post, there is not a vacancy to fill.
Mr. Abdulah: I understand that, but those persons at the upper level, if you have 679 acting appointments it sounds strange that the number of persons confirmed is that small relative to that number of acting.

If there is a domino upwards—Mrs.

Baptiste-Cornelis was trying to get at that as well—it seems strange that so many people have to be acting and nobody is moving out the system at the top so that those confirmations could take place.

It does not quite compute in my mind.


There are some other issues there.

Quite apart from the number of acting appointments, you now have 689 temporary appointments.

That again seems a huge number of temporary appointments and, in a situation with so many people acting and so many people temporary, the issue of employee morale, sense of career progression and those things cannot be planned and individuals may feel demotivated.
It is, therefore, something that needs to be addressed whether in conjunction with the other service commissions and so on, but this situation cannot be perpetuated ad infinitum, because it will lead to the loss of an affective human resource.
The other point I wanted to make is whether, given the fact that some of the local government bodies fall under your purview and some under the Public Services Commission, there is any differentiation in remuneration, terms and conditions of employment for essentially the same job performed by persons whom you appoint and by persons appointed by another service commission.

Is there any discrepancy at all or is it identical all the way through?
Lastly, although you did talk about local government reform previously, are you addressing proposals specific to the fact that some local government bodies are under the purview of the Public Service Commission and some under your responsibility?

How could that be addressed and be harmonized going forward?

Mr. Alvarez: Mr. Abdulah, I am sure that this Commission shares your concern.
One of the things that all of us—since we are relatively new to the Commission—found alarming when we got in was exactly what you talked about—the number of temporary and acting appointments.

This speaks of the need for public sector reform and it is something that needs to be done.

That is why we said, when we were planning our strategies to 2015 that part of that exercise would be to conduct an evaluation of the external environment.
Part of that would be looking at the whole 212 vision of the Executive and where they want to go.

Our part is to bring to the attention of committees like this our concerns, with the hope that after we examine these things we could take adequate steps to address the very concerns you have.

It is something that has to be done holistically.

I know that term has been a bit of a cliché lately, but it has to incorporate, not just the SASC, but perhaps the Public Service Commission in general.
You raised the question of difference in remuneration.

There is no difference between the statutory authorities and the public service.

The difference would be with the classification; that one is a public servant and the other is an officer.

The last thing you spoke about is the harmonization between the public sector and the Statutory Authorities.

It comes back to this whole vision for where we are going in terms of public sector reform.
There is also an area that we have to look at in terms of efficiency of services; how efficient are we if we are all going in different directions?

That is something that, hopefully, after our exercise is completed by November, we should be able to say and make concrete recommendations as to what direction we think the Commission should be going.
Mr. Chairman: Before I go to Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelius—I will come back to you Mr. Abdulah and to Mr. Sharma—I wanted to get some clarification on your role; just to point out some differences and similarities with other commissions.

When you look at the Public Service Commission, the Police Service Commission, the Teaching Service Commission, there is an approach to delegation of certain authorities.
When you look at these commissions relative to the SASC, in terms of appointments and promotions, what you can have, for the position of a principal or from corporal to sergeant, there is a commonality in terms of the persons being appointed.

In your situation, there is clearly a fragmentation because you have about 13 or 14 bodies which report to you.
How do you deal with certain matters such as a Clerk I being promoted to a Clerk II who may be operating and who may have an opportunity across 14 separate bodies, but there are discrete bodies.

How do you deal with that?

Ms. Maraj: In terms of the bodies, you understand that they are discreet bodies, and that is the unique position we find ourselves in at the SASC.
Each one of these authorities that falls under our purview are autonomous bodies and we do not have a unified statutory service as there is a public service, so we are limited.

Take, for instance, at the Port of Spain City Corporation we can only use persons at the Port of Spain City Corporation in terms of appointments/promotions.

Mr. Chairman: To move up within the corporation.

213 Ms. Maraj: And not among the authorities.


If we have a position that maybe the authorities do not have, we would advertise it either within the authorities, within the public service or in the press, and using that method we would have a pool of candidates from which to choose.

Those are mainly for the technical positions, the professional positions.

So, previous commissions have used that method.


In terms of where there is a shortfall, because we have some very small authorities, and some very large authorities, we may ask the larger ones to indicate whether there are any persons there who are interested in being seconded.

So, we do not use the term acting in those cases, we use the term secondment, because they are separate independent bodies.
So you are not moving across from say the Port of Spain or even the San Fernando City Corporation to act, you are being seconded to a higher position.

So, in that way, you have movement within the authorities.

Mr. Chairman: Okay.

Thank you very much for that explanation.

Mr. Sharma, you have not yet joined in.

Mr. Sharma: Thank you, Sir.

Good morning, this is your first meeting, let we welcome you.
You have appeared in front of us for the first time, and the numbers of questions that have been put to you, you are doing very well with your answers.

We are allowed to ask questions so we do not fall asleep, you make sure the others on your side answer so they do not fall asleep as well.
I want to draw your attention to the report that is in front of us, and you know what it contains, so this is a good time to start preparing your report which you will be the authors of, and it must be totally different from what obtains now, by that I mean, it appears sometimes because a report is required based on the 66(b) of the Constitution—the report must really demonstrate a paradigm shift in our thinking and in the conduct of business.
For instance, all of us asked why it takes so long to have this and that—acting appointments, confirmation of appointments.

You make the difference; make it happen, because you have the power so to do.

There seems to be sometimes a tendency to not do that which may appear to be saved for some reasons.

The matters that come under your watch may require your personal intervention, for instance, you may need to visit the city corporations and borough corporations and the homes.
For example, the children‘s home, do you know what is happening there?

The answer may be no, you do not have the time.

You have a lot of meetings.

I noticed you had about 50-plus meetings perhaps at the same place.

You need to take these meetings out there.

You also need to let the national community know of 214 your work.

You do a lot; you volunteer a lot.

I know the compensation cannot afford that expensive suit that you are wearing Sir, but you have to come and do the work and you must be aided.
I know others have spoken about some aspects as it relates to local government, and I would be extremely happy to host your commission at a meeting at your earliest opportunity where, perhaps, you can spend a day with us and become familiar with some of the things.
For you to deliver more, as you are required, as you know the Prime Minister commented that delivery is critical to any government‘s performance and you are an extension of the Government, because you provide a service for which citizens depend on.

As a result, there may be a requirement to revisit your staffing.

Do not fear to engage more people to get the work done.

Sometimes there is a tendency not to engage people, because you may appear to be saving cost.
I want to suggest that you engage where it is required to deliver, especially in the area of human resource management for which there are a number of young, bright persons coming out of local and other universities seeking employment in that area.
In terms of appointments, promotions and acting appointments and the list goes on up to transfers and similar concerns, when I look at these reports over the years, it seems as if only cosmetic attention is given, when you look at the statistics, and if you agree with me, make sure it obtains different in your next report, particularly in the areas of appointment.

The consideration that obtains, for instance, one of the considerations is seniority.
How do you treat with a senior person who obtains the title of seniority, but is a non-performer and is oftentimes absent from the job?

Do you fear that?

Sometime you fear it, because the person has seniority.

How do you treat with young people who make the sacrifice to attend university outside of the working hours for which they get very little assistance, and qualified themselves to better serve the country and seniority comes in front of it?

Do you take that into consideration?


I want to suggest you do that, Sir.

When I say, Sir, I mean the ladies as well.

I have noticed that you spent quite some time with respect to the identification of interested candidates, but I am not sure that you obtain those interested candidates, there should be some public information.

How can someone become an interested candidate?

By that I mean, make use of the print and electronic media.
Let the country know of your existence, your work and what your plans are.

Perhaps, I should ask, what your budget is, but you may not know that answer now.

215 In terms of the Municipal Police recruitment, that requires some attention.

Perhaps, at the meeting with local government we can explore that.

Rest assured that the assistance that you may required is waiting to be offered to you to make sure that we really make the difference that we are required to make.
I think the national community is somewhat concern that some of the service commissions and yours may be included—I am not sure—but it is rather slow; perhaps too slow, and you may want to put some pep into it.

So I am very impressed to see so many young commissioners that may make up for what may obtained in the past.
In terms of information requests, I think if you cause some information to go out to the national community by way of press conferences and by way of appearing on the print and electronic media you, would assist the community.

So the information that they may be seeking from you or that may be required for them to conduct their own business can be had without he/or she coming individually to obtain it.

I trust that you will give some consideration to that.
Where it involves high court actions, I know you have a very brilliant attorney in your commission now and you may want to explore.

Do some of these matters require High Court attention?

Can they not be resolved at your level?

The answer may be yes.

It must always appear to treat with concerns that obtain and we must not say well, you know, there is another place for it.

If it could be attended to, the last resort should be the courts.

Ms. Maraj, are you an attorney as well.

Ms. Maraj: No.
Ms. Maraj: No.

Mr. Sharma: Okay.

I was just going to say that there are two bright lawyers there.

Mr. Chairman, Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you for those very comprehensive comments, Mr. Sharma.

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis, you had a question?

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: Yes.

It follows up a bit from some of the stuff that Mr. Sharma said.

I was looking at page 15 of Appendix 1, where you listed all the advertisements from your annual report 2009/2010.
Now, this is where I am seeing where some problems in recruitment may lie.

For instance, I am seeing in the Port of Spain City Corporation, for the public health visitor, you said you had one applicant.

So nobody was short listed.

It says nobody was suitable, but one person was employed.

So, you see where there seems to be some discrepancy there.
I then looked at the public health inspectors for all the corporations and I see 69 applications of which 27 were shortlisted but nobody was suitable so nobody was employed.

This is the one that 216 really confuses me.

I saw for the St. Jude‘s School for girls where you advertised for a handyman chauffeur and you received 21 applications for a handyman/chauffeur, but none was shortlisted.
I was like what really were the qualifications here that out of these applicants not one person could have been even shortlisted.

I mean, obviously, it looks as if there is a need for HR to beef up.

I want to praise Ms. Maraj for the fantastic—apparently your commission is really good at keeping below the budget.

I noticed in 2008/2009 you all spent $.97 million less than you were allotted to spend and then last year you spent $1.96 million less than you were allotted to spend.
It looks like you all are prone on saving moneys.

I am wondering if this whole quest to save money may be one of the things where you are not filling the positions and as Mr. Sharma said, getting the people in the jobs that could get this thing fast-track and move along.

Just some comments!

Mr. Alvarez: To address the concern that you had about the short-listing and so on.

What I have been told is that when this report was completed 2009/2010 the process was not completed.

That should have been noted.


Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: What about the process with the public health inspector where you said with respect to one application, nobody shortlisted, nobody suitable, but one person was employed.

That one was completed and employment occurred.

That would read, they were not even shortlisted or suitable, but they got employed anyhow.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis.

I want to turn now to get some further clarification with regard to your role.
The other service commissions, in general, has spoken to the role of appointment, discipline and separation, and they have also spoken generally to the point that other aspects like training , development, compensation performance appraisals are done within the executive branch, that is by the Ministries and so on.

In your case, you would have statutory authorities who I expect would have their own individual boards and so on.
How does the SASC relate with these boards in terms of accessing matters of performance appraisals; dealing with questions of succession planning?

What would be your role in terms of succession planning within the boards and in terms of compensation?

Mr. Alvarez: First of all, in terms of the performance, whenever we are asked to make appointments or promotions, we ask the boards to send us performance appraisals reports of those people which we evaluate.
That is looked at in terms of our deliberation process.

We are not involved in terms of evaluation, because we are not within the organization.

217 In terms of salaries and compensation that is done by the CPO.

That is outside our purview.

Training and development is also done by the authorities.

What we do again, it comes in our evaluation, we ask for an update on the person‘s status whenever we are asked to make a decision.

This is one of things that we look at.


We look at what training courses they have done since their appointment and what is their whole development process.

So, it is evaluated by us but it is not initiated by us.

Mr. Chairman: So just to extend the conversation a bit more, you would have heads of the various Statutory Authorities, the equivalent of CEOs and so on, do you have any input in the selection of that CEO or is it the function of the board?
Mr. Alvarez: Yes, we are responsible for the selection.

Mr. Chairman: And you receive a recommendation from the Board in each case?

Mr. Alvarez: No.

We are told that there is a vacancy and many instances, if not all instances, we would have advertised the post.

Ms. Maraj could give you a little more clarity on that process.
Ms. Maraj: In terms of the heads of the Statutory Authorities, what happens is that when a vacancy arises and there is no substantive holder there, there may be an acting arrangement or whatever we try our best to fill those vacancies.

Generally, we would get an input from the line Ministry, the Permanent Secretary of the line Ministry, and we would say, we propose to fill that vacancy, kindly submit your recommendations.
In some instances, we may have to advertise the position so we do advertise from time to time.

Mr. Chairman: Chairman Alvarez, we have heard from you and we have heard from your Executive Officer and I wondered whether there were any comments that other members of your commission would want to make on matters that we have discussed so far?

Mr. Allahar: Mr. Chairman, if I may.


I just want to highlight during our discussions today, we spoke a lot on both sides about possible areas of reform, issues that have arisen in respect of our efficiency and the way that we can make things better, the way that we can be more efficient and serve the purpose that we were set up to serve.
One of the things I think it is useful for us to tell you as a committee, through you, Mr. Chairman, is that for good or ill we must stick within the four corners of the mandate that has been set out in our Act, and we try our best to do so at all times.
Mr. Chairman, if I may refer to that mandate in section 5(1) of our Act, and it says, ―that the commission shall have power to appoint persons to be or act as officers and to transfer, promote, 218 remove and exercise disciplinary control over persons who are appointed‖.
So I hate to use the word ―limited‖, but in the context of our discussion today our remit is certainly limited, in that it has nothing to do with performance appraisals, setting terms and conditions and salaries and doing the specialist HR things that we would find being done within the authorities that we serve.
So that is one limitation and we, of course, bring it to the attention of the commission because we feel at some point in time the Parliament is the place in which this limitation can be addressed.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Any other questions?


Mr. Prescott: Mr. Chairman, I think I was suggesting to the committee before Mr. Allahar spoke, that one needs to see an initiative coming from the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission because: (a) it may never get done unless we show some anxiety to have it done; and (b) you have the hands-on experience, or will soon have, which will enable you to say firmly to those who have the power, this needs to be done.
The Chairman had commenced this session by enquiring about the relevance of the Statutory Authorities‘ Service Commission, and this maybe an opportunity for you to address what makes the commission relevant.

If you should take that initiative; it is a suggestion I would like to make at this time.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Abdulah.


Mr. Abdulah: Mr. Chairman, my earlier question that I had in mind to ask was in part answered by Ms. Maraj when she talked about the somewhat silo nature of each authority, and therefore you cannot transfer across authorities but you second a person from one to the other.
In that regard, I think it relates a bit to the question I was raising earlier about the discrepancy in terms and conditions of employment between public officers under the Public Service Commission.

If you cannot transfer across but you have to second, then, obviously, there are major limitations in terms of career progression and persons therefore may find it very difficult to progress beyond where they are because the vacancies just do not exist for them to get promoted.
Whereas if they were in the wider public service and they could move from one Ministry to another and so on, there may be greater career possibilities.

So I just wanted to indicate that the discrepancy does not only have to do with dollars and cents but also with the opportunity to advance.
The other point I want to make is related to the point that Mr. Allahar made a moment ago, and 219 that is that you have the power to promote, but you do not engage in the HR processes of performance appraisal and so on.

So I was going to ask the question on what basis then do promotions get made, if it is not on the basis of some kind of appraisal of the performance of an individual?
In other words, performance appraisal, to my mind, is simply a tool, it is the not a legal power or responsibility in that sense, it is simply an HR tool by which one can, in some kind of objective way, fulfil the legal obligation to promote or to find appropriate person to promote, so I got a little confused by that.

Mr. Alvarez: Promotions are done at the request of the senior officers, but we do not make a determination whom to promote.
What we do is an evaluation of the criteria, whether the person have met the criteria in terms of qualifications, in terms of experience and, in conducting that exercise, we are guided by the performance appraisals that are supplied to us by the authorities.

Mr. Abdulah: But in that regard do you then have some oversight and ensure that the performance appraisal systems used by each authority are performance appraisal systems that are appropriate?
If those systems are not appropriate and then you are asked to promote, you are then going to be promoting on the basis of a process that might be flawed, and that will create a problem for you and for everyone else.

So do you guide and ensure to make sure that the processes of appraisal are appropriate?

Mr. Alvarez: Well the performance appraisal system is part of the structure within the public service; there is a structure that they follow so we do not depart from that in any way.
Mr. Abdulah: Are you satisfied with it?

Mr. Alvarez: Until such time that we have identified shortcomings which we have not had enough time to perhaps evaluate.

If we were to come up with shortcomings or ways of improving that performance evaluation, I am sure we will make the recommendations.

And that is all part of that whole process that we have given ourselves until November to complete.
Mr. Abdulah: Mr. Chairman, it seems as if previous commissions in fact did not have a difficulty―you have just come in fairly recently, but you must have had a sense of what previous commissions‘ views were on this question and whether you were satisfied with how they approached that question.

Mr. Alvarez: Well, I have not seen anything to date that indicated that there was a concern about the methods of performance evaluation.
But, as I said, it is something that if it comes up―we are looking at the entire process so that one of the things that this commission is very committed 220 towards is to ensure that the exercise that we conduct―and I think Mr. Sharma talked about it―is that we do not want it to just be a piece of paper that you supply.
It has to be realistic, it has to be something that ties and that is why we spoke about tying in with that whole holistic view of the Executive, so that when we make proposals it is something that goes beyond simply pieces of paper, it is things that can be implemented.
Mr. Chairman: Okay, before I turn to Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin, I want to inject a new perspective into this discussion and that is that in your strategic plan―I will quote―your strategic plan seeks to address, in terms of implementation, ―to change the adverse perceptions of the organization in order to restore public confidence.‖ That is one of the plans of your strategic plan.
There have been complaints which I have heard, anecdotally, about the length of time that all the service commissions take to make an appointment; mention has already been made about one year plus six months in the case of police officers and so on.

How do you intend to shorten that period of appointments?
And I will share with you, it would have come from the Public Service Commission, that they have implemented standing interviewing committees with standing panels, permanent panels that would shorten the process for recruitment and for appointment for promotions and so on.

That is one area.

The first area is the question of appointments.


I think it is very clear that we are experts in this country of Bollywood type and Hollywood type arrangements where everybody is an actor, but we do not have many stars.

How do you intend to shorten that period because I believe that is one of the areas where you have adverse public opinion?

Secondly, what are the other areas that you have found where you have these adverse perceptions of the organization SASC?
Mr. Alvarez: First of all, let me say that the SASC has the shortest of all the time periods in terms of appointments.

In addition to that, since we have met there have been no delay whatsoever in terms of making appointments.

We have sub-committees that do our interviews, sub-committees of the commission that do our interviews and our members have been putting aside whatever time is necessary to ensure that these things are done expeditiously.
The concerns that we talked about in terms of image would have arrived from some of the litigation that would have come―some High Court action that may have come against the Commission.

And one of the things that we have addressed there is to hopefully arrive at some area where the public can see the work of the SASC through the internet, and so we are hoping to development a whole IT area within our whole strategic plan, and that would assist.
That is one 221 of the areas where you could have interaction with the public and they could have a better feel for what the SASC is all about.

Mr. Chairman: You said that the time frame for appointment was the shortest among the Service Commissions, but are you satisfied that the time frame that you are pursuing is good enough?
Mr. Alvarez: I would think that there is always room for improvement, but there have been no delays that we can speak of since we got there, there have never been any issues that we have been delaying and everything that has come before us in terms of recommendations and vacancies and positions to be filled, we have addressed immediately.

Mr. Chairman: Any other members of the Commission who would like to make a comment at this time?

Mr. Maharaj: Good Morning.


I have been listening to the discussions so far and I am very pleased with the way we are going.

But I know when we visit the corporations, we are going to come up with information that we will need to share with the others because we are going to see things happening there that we are not pleased with.
And being a very proactive person, one who has been in the public service for a number of years, one of the areas I am very focused on is that one of human resource, and how we tackle the human resource and if I see shortcomings, although it may not be within our purview, I am sure that this Commission will be making recommendations to these bodies about how we are going to improve the performance management system.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin: Thank you, Sir.


I really wanted to ask you―I find that your programme here is very, very good, very impressive, and I wanted to ask you whether you have met your targets and whether you are satisfied with your progress yourself, or whether, you know, you need some extra fillips to help you along.

Mr. Alvarez: I need to get a little clarity on that, whether we have met our targets, that is what you said?
Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin: Yes, I am looking at the―I know they are new, but as you go through, have you seen the kinds of results that have been projected or do you have to go back into a whole lot of things and fix them; whether you are satisfied with where you are at?

We definitely have to go back and revise.

That is what we are currently doing.

We would never 222 be satisfied until we are operating at a level of efficiency that takes into consideration all the concerns that our stakeholders have.
And so, I suppose even at the end of our tenure, this would be a work that continues to be a work in progress.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, are there any other questions, comments?

Mr. Umraw: Just a point, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that your concerns and concerns of the public are surely our concerns and all the points that you have raised were uppermost in our minds.
We want to guarantee you that we would be very proactive and not reactive, and that we would do our best in the shortest possible time to implement most of the pointers and recommendations that have been made here today.

Thank you Sir.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments, questions?

Okay Miss Cudjoe?

Miss Cudjoe: I just have a quick question.

I wanted to know, what are you prepared to do, this new commission?
What are some of the ideas and strategies that you have come up with to improve the operation of the commission, its effectiveness and its efficiency?

I looked particularly at page six of the 2009/2010 report and one of the concerns Sen. Baptiste-Cornelis had, was advertising for positions.

I recognized on page six the report says that not all appointment selections follow the full preliminary processes.
It mentioned that because of the vast number of applications that you have from over the years starting from 2004 to 2010, you do not see the need to advertise some of these positions.

But I want to raise a red flag that some of the applications that were submitted in 2004/2005, some of those people may not be available now in 2011.

I see you have a total—adding all the applications from 2004 all the way to 2010—of 1440 applications so you do not need to advertise.
Of course, this is the report of the previous commission, so I want to know what do you intend to do that differently, especially as it relates to treating with human resources issues and applications, appointments and advertising, especially, because the people you had available in 2004 may not even be around now in 2011.

Thank you.

Mr. Alvarez: We are currently doing an exercise where we have been looking at these merit lists, we had the very same concern that you had.
We were looking at merit lists from 2001, 2002, 2004 and we have taken steps to immediately upgrade all these merit lists so that they become current.

But in terms of a long term strategy rather than simply advertise the positions, we want to have available to the public, through the new website or the upgraded website for the SASC, these positions so that one could can go up on the internet and pull up these positions and 223 they can download the forms and all that stuff.
They have to transform the commission into the modern era.

And that is one of the immediate plans that we have for them.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, before I close I will give the deputy Chairman of the commission the opportunity to make some comments.

Mrs. Harry: Good day, I just want to say that we will take all your recommendations, some of which we actually were looking at.

We would actually spend some time, more than a week I would say we meet, every Tuesday, normally.
We have interviews sometimes, we have to meet on different occasions and we are up there about three times per week—some weeks so—that we will work steadfastly and diligently for November, our target that we gave you all, so we can come up with some strategies and effective solutions.

That is our target.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, we would like to close this part of our meeting and I would make some concluding remarks.
I think the first question that was asked of you Chairman Alvarez, was how relevant is the SASC?

And you said that you are going to think about it and come back to us as to how you can relevant or more relevant if I remember your comment correctly.

We would like to get some sort of feedback as to that matter within the shortest possible time because that seems to be the time frame for most responses that we get.

Not in November or December but within the shortest possible time.
On that note, I was very grateful to see that there is a time frame for the rework of your strategic plan which is due in November or December.

We would look forward to receiving that, as soon as you have it accepted going forward.

There were a number of issues that were raised and I believe that you can get them out of the verbatim notes and we would expect you to respond to some of them within the shortest possible time.
I would ask that that be as short as one month, so that the ones that you cannot respond to within that time frame you can give us a note saying that you are unable to give us definitive or clear answer within that sort of time frame.

I want to thank the members of the commission for joining us today to discuss matters relating to the SASC and for your frank view on the way forward.

I am sure those views over time will be crystalized into a clear action plan as we work towards the strategic plan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for handling the bulk of the questions and thank you executive officer 224 and members of the commission.

I want to thank my members as well for their usual forthrightness, in terms of raising the questions that we need to have answered.

So, with those few words I will suspend the sitting, and members will be asked to move to committee room No.

2, where we will conclude our deliberations for the day.

Thank you all very much.


Meeting suspended at 11.37 a.m. 225 VERBATIM NOTES OF EIGHTH MEETING OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO CONSIDER AND REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND SERVICE COMMISSIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION, HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM NO.
2 AND THE CHAMBER, RED HOUSE, PORT OF SPAIN, ON FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 2011, AT 9.33 A.M. OFFICIALS OF THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION Professor Ramesh Deosaran Chairman Mrs. Gloria Edwards-Joseph Director of Personnel Administration Ms. Jacqueline Cheesman Mr. Kenneth Parker Dr. Kerry Sumersar-Rai Mr. Addison Khan Mr. Alfred Gray Ms. Satie Maniram Mr. Anthony Samuel Ms. Ann Marie Andrews Ms. Anoushka Ramsaran Ms. Kavita Jodhan Member Member Dir.
Monitoring, Evaluation & Education Commissioner Assistant Director Audit Assistant Director Audit Assistant Director Public Education Sen. Human Resource Adviser (Ag.)

Legal Adviser Legal Adviser Mr. Chairman: Good morning and welcome to the 8th meeting of this Joint Select Committee appointed to enquire into and report to Parliament on the Municipal Corporations and Service Commissions with the exception of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission.
Our meeting has already been convened and we have now joined in the sitting in public hearing in this the Parliamentary Chamber.

Today we have invited the Police Service Commission for its second meeting with us to discuss matters relevant to the commission in its discharge of the function of oversight of the police service and the responsibly that it has, particularly for the Police Service Commissioner and its three Deputy Commissioners.
So, without further ado, I will ask the members of the Police Commission to once again, introduce through its Chairman and as well the support services, the Secretariat, of the Commission.

Thereafter, we will have a quick look at some of the matters we discussed the last time, and then 226 we will move forward with the deliberations of our meeting today.

So, let me welcome Chairman, Prof. Ramesh Deosaran, to introduce his members and members of the Secretariat.
Prof. Ramesh Deosaran: Mr. Chairman, let me thank you on behalf of the Police Service Commission very, very much for inviting us to make this appearance before you and the select committee.

I am Chairman, Ramesh Deosaran, what I will do is to ask each member to introduce himself or herself, which would be done more expeditiously than I would have done.

[Entities introduce themselves] Mr. Chairman: On my right are the members of our committee, and I ask them to quickly introduce themselves.
[Members introduce themselves] Mr. Chairman: Thank you all for those introductions.

The secretary to our committee is Jacqueline Phillip-Stoute.

Now, at the last meeting—or shall I say at our first meeting with the Police Service Commission—a number of areas were introduced, and I want to just quickly bring these matters up, and I hope, Chairman, that in your introductory remarks, you might choose to address some of these things our as we go along.

At our last sitting several matters were raised.


The question for accommodation for the Commission, and we would like to know what is status of that going forward; the question of the filling of vacancies in the Police Service Commission secretariat, the questions of legislative and regulatory reform and adjustments that the commission then thought was necessary and the status of that reform or adjustment; the questions of a medium term strategic plan and the status of that plan by the Commission.
Other matters were raised in terms of the composition of the Appeals Tribunal which oversees the decisions of a disciplinary tribunal within the police service.

I think issues were raised with regard to accommodation for the PSC appeals tribunal in terms of a lack of court room, note- taker, law books, computers, sufficient staff and a registry.

Those are some of the main items and issues that were raised.
Mr. Deosaran, I want to welcome you, it is said that new brooms sweep clean and I think that is introduction enough to you and I leave it to you for some introductory remarks.

Prof. Deosaran: Thank you Sir, you would like me to refer to the points that you raised now or later on?

227 Mr. Chairman: I think that we could do that later on.

Prof. Deosaran: Later on, okay.
Well my introductory remarks are, to follow what you have said, as you know I am a new Chairman—less than two months in the office—and it is a very important Commission for the country, it has to do with public safety, it has to do with holding the agencies—especially the police service—accountable to the Government, the Executive, the Parliament and to the country in ensuring that there is a reductions in the fear of crime, there is a reduction in the incidence of crime and there is an increase in public safety all-around.
So, the commissioners and myself do take this responsibility that we have very, very seriously because crime is, as has been said repeatedly, one of the most serious problems facing the country.

Mr. Chairman: I open it up for questions now, Members.

If there are no questions at this time maybe you can address some of the issues that we have raised—give us a status, an update.
Prof. Deosaran: Well Sir, in arriving at our constitutional mandate in substance that is, to monitor, appraise the Commissioner of Police, his three deputies and by implication to examine the management of the entire police service, we have to prepare ourselves in a number of ways in terms of human resource, in terms of accommodation, in terms of having the appropriate legislative and administrative infrastructure to do so.
In all these fronts we are moving quite rapidly within the last two months—the Commissioners and myself together with the DPA‘s office.

With respect to accommodation, as you indicated Sir, we have been moving rapidly and to the point where we expect to be in a new location with more satisfactory and safe facilities within the next three months.
We are trying to fast-track all the required approvals, I think that would raise the morale of our staff at the Secretariat, because there have been several serious complaints about the structure and the facilities where we are now.

So, there is a positive ring to that.

The other issue is the vacancies.


The DPA‘s office and the commission are working very feverishly again, up to last week we had a meeting with the DPA‘s office, the Commission and myself and the Director of Personnel Administration with regard to getting the contracts renewed—those that are due for renewal or re-advertized—and we are also trying to stabilize the Secretariat which is really expected to be a permanent secretariat.
If you read the records in the Hansard you would see that the Executive at the time intended the Secretariat to be a very vibrant, permanent secretariat; so, we are moving in that direction.

We have had a meeting—if I might say so, without going too far into this aspect—with what is called the PMCD that is the organization in the Government that looks after staffing, infrastructure and so on.
So, we are 228 moving in that direction to strengthen our staffing, and to make it more compatible in terms of expertise in dealing with the mandate as I mentioned before.

We recognize too, while we are talking about our mandate, we have to be closely attuned to what the Police Commissioner has to do.

He has to give us a report, subject to an appropriate design which we will forward to him.
He has to respond to any special report we require, depending on the matter of concern to both, the Commission, or the public, and he has been doing so periodically.

So, we are trying to forge a partnership along the way, with the Police Commissioner and the Police Service, so as to arrive at the result the public expects, that is an improvement in public safety, Mr. Chairman, and a reduction in crime and other management issues that will arise along the way.
With respect to legislative reform, earlier this week we had a meeting with someone who has been hired as a consultant to look at our regulations.

The Commission itself does not have any regulations, the Appeal Tribunal does have its own regulations but we need to have regulations so as to activate what the provisions in the Constitution require us to do.
That meeting was held with the consultant but arising out of an extended discussion, the Commission and the consultant herself and senior staff at the Secretariat, Mr. Chairman, decided that the more effective way to enter into legislative or even administrative reform, and especially since the legislation is relatively new—Act 6 of 2006, and the amendments that follow in 2007 and the Legal Notices and so on—the best way to enter into this arena of reform will be to meet with the agencies that are closely connected to the work that we do that is, the Commissioner of Police who has his own Police Service Act to deal with and some anomalies have been pointed out to us.
We met with the Police Complaints Authority, Mr. Chairman, and there are some anomalies there but there are some avenues for mutual assistance.

We also have to meet with a representative or the Attorney General himself to see whether the reforms are not only necessary but they are practical, and having the reforms without going necessarily too far into the Constitution.
So, in a nutshell we are meeting with all the agencies in order to concretize the direction we need to enter with respect to legislative and administrative reform.
With respect to the strategic plan, Mr. Chairman, which you referred to, I think it would be more fruitful in terms of detail, to ask our Director of Monitoring, Dr. Rai, to respond to this, after which I will similarly ask Mr. Addison Khan, who together with Mr. George and Mr. Parker had 229 been undertaking the responsibilities of the Appeals Tribunal.
Mr. Khan will speak about the process, the challenges and also the way forward particularly in terms of having a legislative framework—some reform needed—to help guide the work of the Appeals Tribunal.

So, Mr. Chairman with your permission, if I could refer the question on the strategic plan, and I will come afterwards if there are anything I need to fill in, I will ask Dr. Rai to speak on the plan, so if you will allow me.

Dr. Sumersar-Rai: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


The Secretariat and the Police Service Commission in 2009 drafted a draft strategic plan for the period 2009 to 2011; some aspects of that plan were in fact implemented.

With the new commission a new master plan is being prepared.

We have all ready begun work on this master plan, in fact we began work almost two months ago.
What we propose is that division and the mission of the previous plan remain intact, and the vision as stated is: To have a highly innovative oversight agency providing expertise and support to the Police Service Commission in transforming it into an effective, efficient and principled organization capable of delivering quality service.
To achieve this vision our mission is: To consistently monitor, evaluate and review the performance and actions of the of Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioners of Police, and the Police Service with the purpose of enhancing the safety and security of citizens and assist in the creation of a professional organization that delivers quality service to all stakeholders thereby maintaining national development.
To operationalize this mission statement we have a master strategy that looks at the immediate issues short-term from 2011 to 2012, and the medium term from 2012 to 2015.

Dr. Sumersar-Rai: This master plan will focus on what you call thematic areas: monitoring and evaluation of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service; addressing the issues of human resources; public communication as it relates to the Police Service Commission; organizational reform; and as the Chairman spoke, legislative reform.
We are in the process of working out the various points.

We have done some work on it and we expect within the next month that this master plan will be completed, focusing and detailing the activities for the various thematic areas.

This would provide the secretariat with clear targets to achieve and thereby make the Police Service Commission the agency that it was designed to be.

Mr. Chairman: So, you are working on a master plan, when do you expect that that plan would 230 be completed?
Dr. Sumersar-Rai: Within a month's time.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, within a month.

Prof. Deosaran: Mr. Chairman, with your permission again, if we are finished with the general picture of the strategic plan, could I ask Mr. Khan to speak on the appeals system?
Mr. Khan: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Joint Select Committee, at the present time the Constitution requires the Police Service Commission itself to hear appeals from the decisions of the Commissioner of Police in disciplinary matters and promotional matters.

The work of the Commission has been done by three members so far and the work is proceeding satisfactorily.

So far 13 appeals have been filed.

We have completed the hearings of six appeals.


We have delivered three written judgments, three judgments will be delivered on June 28, 2011, and on the same day, June 28, 2011 we would hear another appeal and deal with two-case management conferences.

Now, the Commission—that is the Appeal Tribunal—having begun its work, it appears that police officers are encouraged to file appeals, and so we anticipate that many more appeals will be filed.
In those circumstances the Commission discussed whether three members sitting on the Appeal Tribunal is sufficient, and the feeling was expressed that the membership of the Commission should be increased to seven so that we can have two tribunals hearing appeals, and there are at least six members of the Commission who will have the duty and get the experience of hearing the appeals.
At the moment it must be remembered that the Commission is a part-time Commission and so we are not hearing the appeals as fast as we can.

Be that as it may, the members of the Appeal Tribunal have been trying their best to deal with the appeals as quickly as possible.

On the question of resources which was raised on the last occasion, Mr. Chairman and Members, some progress has been made.
We have been provided with a courtroom that is outfitted and satisfactory for use by the Appeals Tribunal and I also understand from the Director of Personnel Administration that the computers that we required are being provided, very shortly we expect to receive them, also provision will shortly be made for the appointment of support staff for the Appeals Tribunal.
At the present time, the Queen Street office is really not the best place to house the Police Service Commission and as the Chairman mentioned alternative accommodation is being pursued very 231 vigorously.

As far as the books and the law reports and so on are concerned, I hope that they will come in due course.

So I can report this morning, Sir, that we are making progress and we intend to make further progress in order to deal with all outstanding appeals as quickly as we can.
Mr. Chairman: Let me ask a couple questions, one is, you spoke to the number of appeals and I believe the number was 13?

Mr. Khan: Thirteen so far.

Mr. Chairman: I want to ask a question with regard to the composition of the tribunal.

You spoke about increasing the number of persons so that you can expand capacity in terms of the tribunal.
In terms of the capability—the competence of persons on the tribunal—do you feel that there is sufficient competence at the level of the tribunal to address the issues raised in those appeals?

Mr. Khan: At the present time, certainly.

We have two lawyers on the Commission; Mr. Martin George and I am an attorney-at-law of considerable experience, and I am experienced in judicial work, so at the present time, yes.
Mr. Chairman: You spoke about in terms of the volume of appeals and the fact that the members are part-time members, are you suggesting that—as I think a case was made last time— there be a complement of full-time members to hear appeals?

Mr. Khan: That would be the ideal, Mr. Chairman, that you have a full-time tribunal to hear appeals.
Mr. Chairman: Now, it is fortuitous that you have members who may be, at this point in time, competent to sit on a tribunal to hear appeals, but in terms of the constitutional requirement for membership, it is not always the case that you may have a complement of members who might be sufficiently competent to sit as tribunal members—one of the questions that comes to mind is, do you think that it is the time now to have a tribunal that may not necessarily constitute members of the Commission, but whose job it is to sit on a fulltime basis to address appeals?
Mr. Khan: It is something that could be considered, in which case the Constitution will have to be amended, because as I said, at the present time the Constitution expects the Police Service Commission to hear appeals—the members themselves to hear appeals.
Mr. Sandy: Before we proceed I which to state for the record, as Minister of National Security, there may be some issues that could border conflict of interest, but through you, Sir, I wish to 232 reserve my right to ask questions in those areas that do not so do.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, so noted, Mr. Sandy.


Prof. Deosaran: Cabinet has approved about 42 positions for the secretariat and included in that, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Joint Select Committee, Cabinet had approved an appeals body comprising one retired judge and two senior attorneys, so we have to reach that point.
The second point about the expertise you are asking about and you are quite correct, the constitutional provisions require that members of the Commission be competent in certain specified areas, like law, management, sociology, and so on.
So Mr. Khan is therefore correct, if you have to reach the point that you are suggesting, quite rightly, we will have to review those provisions in the constitutional context, but overall the meeting I spoke about, the meeting of agencies: the AG office, the Ministry of National Security, because of the policy-making body, we will have to take the Ministry of National Security firmly on board, these areas for reform will emerge but with a mutual understanding among all the partners, the Police Commissioner for example, Ministry of National Security; so we are on the track about reform to include what you are suggesting about the full-time tribunal, whether it is separate or whether it is within the Commission is a matter we will be actively considering, Sir.
Mr. Abdulah: Mr. Chairman, through you, I know that the issue of appeals that was identified just now and the process is largely as a result of decisions they were made by the Commissioner of Police, say for example, with respect to promotions and so on.
On the last occasion that we met here there was a certain amount of heat and a bit less light that was shed on one aspect of this process, I wanted to know from the determination of the appeals, whether the Commission is satisfied—and a review, perhaps, of the functioning of the Commissioner of Police—that the process of promotions, recruitment and so on, and disciplinary hearings, several processes, because there are several processes: recruitment, promotion and also disciplinary action taken, those processes are both fair and transparent in the opinion of the Commission?
If not, whether the Commission has advised the management of the police service the ways in which those processes may need to be corrected to ensure that they are fair and transparent?

Prof. Deosaran: Are you referring to the question of promotions within the service?

Mr. Abdulah: Well, Mr. Chairman, through you, I think there are three separate: there is recruitment, then there is promotion and then there is a disciplinary process as well.
I think, perhaps, the Commission could address whether each of those processes of recruitment, of 233 promotion and of discipline are fair and transparent and if not, what has been done by the Commission to direct, guide, advise the management of the police service which is lead by the Commissioner of Police on how it could be corrected and improved.
Prof. Deosaran: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Abdulah‘s questions strike at the heart of the work which the Commission is responsible for, that is, whilst the Commissioner of Police has, as is stated in the Constitution, complete powers over managing the human, physical and material resources of the police service as an oversight body and given the documentation and, I should also say, complaints, by the Police Social and Welfare Association, there is some disturbance with respect to how the promotion issues are being handled from two points of view: one, in terms of the delay; and secondly in terms of perceived unfairness.
We have documentation now before the Police Service Commission which requires us to attend to the matter and at the next meeting we are having with the Commissioner of Police, apart from writing him on these matters, we are going to have an extensive discussion on the procedures used for promotions.

In fact, we have written him and I think his response is due by June 21st—Dr.
Rai could confirm this—I have written him on the matter because there is an increase in complaints, not only from the association, but from individual officers.

So we think it is a matter that needs to be attended to, given the rule that we have to play, that is to ensure that he is managing the police service properly, fairly and transparently and that goes for the same issue of discipline.

There is a mounting increase in grievances about discipline and Mr. Khan and his tribunal are handling those.
But in both respects, Sir, and in answer to Mr. Abdulah question, it is a matter now engaging the full attention of the Commission and on the next meeting, quite likely, we would give a fuller report on how far we have gone with that, either in terms of management review on the matters regarding this Police Service Act itself and the legislation governing discipline.
On the question of recruitment, we have not gotten very much into that yet, but I know there is an elaborate process, Sen. Abdulah, in terms of the probation period, in terms of the role of the police academy and so on.

But we have paid attention to the promotion and discipline aspects that fall under the Police Commission but we have not gone into the recruitment aspects, at least as far as my own experience in the last two months, tells me, Sir.
Now, you are―recruitment, if any officer who has been here longer than I have been could throw some light on Sen. 234 Abdulah‘s—[Interruption] Mr. Chairman: I think Dr. Rai wants to make a comment on that.

Dr. Rai: Yes, just to support what the Chairman has said and to partially answer, what you have asked, Senator.

We have embarked on a programme, on a project actually to examine the recruitment and promotion systems and practices of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service for the last three years.
I have an officer that is assigned to this programme.

She has mapped out a substantial part of the recruitment and promotion process, and she is attempting at this point to verify the processes mapped out with the Trinidad and Tobago Police.

So when the Chairman said that within a month we will have a full discourse with the Commissioner of Police, he is accurate.

We have not gone into the discipline—looking at the discipline aspect just yet.

But that is one of the projects we do have in mind as well.
Mr. Chairman: Question to you, Chairman.

Under the new legislation, the commission is required to examine and make a determination on the performance on the Police Commissioner and the three Deputy Police Commissioners periodically.

First of all, how often is this to be done?

And secondly, up to this point in time are you satisfied with the performance of the Commissioner of Police and his Deputies?
Prof. Deosaran: The Commissioner of Police is required to produce for the commission‘s attention periodic reports, but statutorily speaking, every six months, in writing; secondly, we also have to produce an annual report on his performance.
So far, what we have been doing is meeting with him; we have gotten all the documents from him with respect to his strategic plan, his operational plan and for example, we are examining―there are 13 objectives that he has stated in one of his periodic reports to us and we are now matching those objectives with what really happens in the police service.
So there is a Gap Analysis so to speak, that we are doing but we have not really evaluated the police commissioner as the Constitution requires, because of the length of time, one, he has been hired-about eight months now, and as I explained in another place, this commission has never evaluated any police commissioner yet since the new legislation has come on board, because of the temporary nature of previous appointments.
So this is the first police commissioner we are entering into a full scale constitutionally defined evaluation, but we are on the road in getting the instruments ready.

We also want to develop the instruments so he will know what he is going to be evaluated upon.

We want to have a clear idea 235 as to what he is setting out to do in terms if it is objectives.
We have a pilot project on what is called the ―21st century project‖; we are gathering some data on the work that he is doing under that project on the Western part of Trinidad and Tobago.

But to come to a firm conclusion as to his performance, Mr. Chairman, in reference to the question you asked, I do not think we could give that fairly at this point in time.
But we are taking the responsibility serious, because when I looked at the figures between 2006/2007 up to last year 2010, in terms of the crime statistics as they are called, one thing that bothers us particularly―the commission―one thing that bothers us particularly, apart from what the reported crimes say, is the decrease in the level of detection.

The level of detection is in our view, very unfortunate, very distressing and very unsatisfactory.
Detection rate is a primary responsibility of the police service no matter what the crime statistics at the front-end in terms of police reports could be, but detection rate is a clear indicator that the capacity and efficiency of police work and between 2007 —2010, in terms of a particular period, the picture is not very encouraging.

We look forward to this present Commissioner, therefore, with the help of the Police Service Commission and the Executive to make things better for our country‘s safety.
Mr. Chairman: Before I go to Mrs. Thomas, I wanted to get the answer to that question, when do you expect to have the first assessment as constitutionally required of the police commissioner and his deputies.

Prof. Deosaran: We expect to have an assessment of the commissioner by September.

I do not know if Mr. Parker―Mr.

Parker could you confirm that?

Mr. Parker: Yes, you are correct, by September.

Prof. Deosaran: Do you want to elaborate for the Chairman and the committee‘s benefit?
Mr. Parker: Yes, Mr. Chairman, at the PSC level we have a subcommittee looking specifically at the whole process of evaluation of the police service as part of the effectiveness of the police commissioner and his executive.

The process is a relatively new process not only for the PSC itself.

It is a very, very, complicated process.

It is not your normal run of the mill, evaluation exercise.
Because of the number of the stakeholders involved in the entire process, it is our intention eventually to create a very detailed process, discuss with the Commissioner of Police and his executives on the one hand, our particular approach to evaluation and monitoring of the entire police service, given the new mandate of the police commissioner for the overall 236 responsibility for the police service.
Mr. Chairman: Are you saying that is not done yet a discussions of how the police commissioner is going to be evaluated?

Has that been done yet?

Mr. Parker: No, no.

It is in process.

However, much of our own particular exercise also has to do with the police service‘s own strategic document and the targets they have set themselves in the achievement of their objectives.
And so that, in addition to that approach, we would also like eventually to have ourselves, the PSC, the police service and the stakeholders outside of those two, the Ministry of National Security and the public themselves have a sense of an understanding of the entire exercise although at different levels of detail, so that the expectations are pretty much on the same page.

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Thomas, you had a question?

Mrs. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Prof. Deosaran I refer to the report done in July 2009 on the parameters for monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police.

I looked at the procedures to monitor performance of the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police.

I just want to find out from you if these procedures are taking place and if they are ongoing?

And I look for example, at No.


3 to collect, review and analyze data with respect to complaints from the public and police officers and the actions taken by the Commissioner of Police in response to actions taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.

And then I look at No.

8, visits to targeted police stations, conduct interviews with police officers, review and analyze feedback provided by police officers to inform a summary of findings.
Are these procedures taking place because this report was done in 2009?

I just want to confirm that this is ongoing.

Prof. Deosaran: Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.

We have a document, Mr. Chairman, that goes into detail with respect to the questions raised as to whether the procedures are followed.

The answer is, yes they have been followed in terms of ground level data.

But I will ask Mr. Gray, who is Director of Evaluation to elaborate.
Can you provide the select committee with some further details, Mr. Gray?

Mr. Gray: Thank you.

With respect to the process of monitoring and evaluating the police commissioner and his deputies, there are a number of actions that need to be done.

First of all, in the Constitution the question of monitoring is addressed.

From a professional standpoint, monitoring takes into consideration two aspects.

One, process evaluation and two you have 237 impact evaluation.
Process evaluation is an ongoing exercise with the Police Service Commission.

Impact evaluation is dependent on provision of the commissioner of certain documents as was mentioned by Dr. Rai.

The strategic plan and any other operational issues that he implements we need to have documentation of that to carry out our function to see if this is actually being done and how successful the exercise is.
So it is in that context the question of monitoring of the police service by the Police Service Commission Secretariat needs to be viewed.

Thank you.

Mrs. Thomas: I have a follow-up question to that.

I understand all that you have said about your processes and so, but what I am just looking for from you, can you say then, for example, in item No.

4, to collect, review and analyze opinion surveys and public feedback from the media and so, have these been done?
It is just that—you know, being in the public you never hear about any of these things taking place, but yet, they are part of your procedures to do your whole analysis and to do the evaluation.

Maybe I missed it, but I just want to know if these things are being done.

Mr. Gray: Yes all of these are being done by the secretariat.

Mr. Chairman: You wanted to add.


Dr. Rai: Just to add to what my colleague has said, but we want you to bear in mind that we need to distinguish between the appraisal of the commissioner and the monitoring process.
The monitoring process as my colleague said, is quite extensive, and it involves the parameters that you have before you in terms of collecting data from the field to compare with what is submitted by the Commissioner of Police, as well as collecting data from public sources such as the media and surveys.

We have done testing of survey formats so that —and we got responses from various stakeholders.
We are in the process of continuing that activity all with an aim to finalize the appraisal format which will then be discussed with the Commissioner of Police, because we need to have everyone on board with a comprehensive understanding of what is being done before the final appraisal—the actual appraisal is done.

Let me add that in the period 2009 to 2010 the first part an appraisal format was developed and was shared, with the then acting commissioner of police.
Since then the commission have looked at that appraisal format and have decided that we need to review it, and this is what Mr. Parker, was referring to that we are in the process of reviewing it making it more accurate.
We need to emphasize that the process as Prof. Deosaran, mentioned is a scientific process, and that it is not going to be purely a subjective appraisal but it has to be an appraisal based on 238 objective, empirical evidence that has to be collected from the police service itself, and as well as the opinions and views of stakeholders.

Mr. Chairman: Miss Cudjoe.

Miss.


Cudjoe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I want to know, following up on your statement how national is this process of collecting views and opinions; and analyzing data for this monitoring of the performance of the police service and the commissioner of police, because I do not remember surveys and so forth being done in Tobago, so I do not know if you have not gotten to my end of woods yet.
But help me— Dr. Sumersar-Rai: Yes, the process is fairly national, but I want you to bear in mind that the resources that we have at our disposal, right.

We have been conducting stakeholder furore across the country.

Not actually going physically to say south, but have invited and interacted with stakeholder groups from South, Central as well along the East/West corridor, business communities, National Parent and Teacher‘s Association.
So if you go back to the 2009 report you would see that we conducted a number of stakeholder meetings.

Within those meetings we actually capture the views of the stakeholders.

We have also conducted internal stakeholder surveys with a couple branches of the police service; that data is with us.

We have done some testing initially of surveys with the Principal‘s and Teacher's Association and we have captured that data.

So between the periods 2009 to now, we have had several stakeholder meetings.
We have had two stakeholder meetings in Tobago, and at those meetings we have issued survey forms, and collected the data with regard to the views of our brothers and sisters in Tobago.

We are going to Tobago this week to hold another stakeholder meeting, and we will be giving some feedback to the stakeholders on Friday with regard to what they have raised and what has been done to address their concerns.
So basically what I am saying is that we are involved in a number of activities, but we are not able to do it on a large scale because we do not have the resources at this point.

For instance, to hold say 500 persons or 1000 persons in one shot will require field officers and so on.

To go out on the field is of course a substantial amount of financial resources.

Mr. Chairman: I think that the point is being raised that your findings have not resonated with the national community.
It has not been the kind of feedback as to what your findings are, and I suppose that will be addressed with regard to resources, and we will come to resources in a 239 minute.

Mr. Prescott, you had a question?

Mr. Prescott: Thank you, Chairman, and through to Chairman, Prof. Deosaran.

It is clear from all that is being going on today that there is a certain desire and appetite for a report to the public on what has been transpiring.
Now, I am not aware of any other means available to the Police Service Commission, than reports to Parliament and to this joint select committee.

I have observed in the newspapers ever since your appointment, chairman, that much discussion about how you propose to treat with the police commissioner, and I imagine how both you and the police service commission propose to treat with the commissioner have been finding their way into the media.
Not all of which have been complimentary of the police commissioner himself, forgive me, but do you think that is the way you propose to continue to treat with the police commissioner, or are you chaffing at the bit, because there are no other ways of getting your message out to the public.

Prof. Deosaran: It is an interesting question for the public.

You made reference to all that is not in favour of the commissioner.
I really do not understand, because if I remember what was said, and what reached the media and quite often it happens to be two different things; what was said and what comes through the media.

I think by now most people in this country would recognize there is usually a big difference.
When the reporters asked me to question to be very specific ―what will you do if the police commissioner does not perform satisfactorily?‖ That was a question from the media, and I felt obliged to answer out of respect to the occasion, and the role of the media and what I said—that is why I am happy you raised the question, Mr. Prescott—I said ―if after repeated measures, if after repeated measures‖—which means that is what we are supposed to do as a commission—the performance is still not satisfactory there is only one option, and the press put it in a different way.
So I am glad you asked the question.
I also made mention of the fact which I think is what the country wants and I believe the executive will wish that too, that the commission at least from my point of view, I am going to take a very businesslike approach meaning accountability, fairness and results, because that has been missing in this country in many respects over the years, but without belabouring the point given the importance of public safety, and given the challenges facing the executive in that respect an agency like the police service commission to me can do no less, and should do no less than being very businesslike and seeking to account to the public in whatever legitimate avenue exists including this one.
240 Mr. Prescott: By way of follow-up, and may be to stress the second point I was making is are you feeling that there is a need for another system of reporting to the public other than those two formal structures that exists now?
Prof. Deosaran: This is a very good question, because speaking for myself it is my view—and this is the premise in answering your question, that any public officer especially one having an office in the commission like we have, we have an obligation to keep the public informed in this day and age.
What we are attempting to develop is a regular newsletter and a regular system of press conferences that will not be unduly boatful or sententious, but informative and using it to get the public support in what we are doing, and to also satisfy them that we are carrying out our mandate.

So in answer to your question, yes.

We are developing one or two other fora to deliver what we are doing for the public, and thank you very much for question I must say.
Mr. Chairman: Prof. Deosaran, do you have a website, does the commission have a website?

Prof. Deosaran: Well that again is a vital question.

We would like the police service commission to have its own independent website, and not be connected to the general website of all the other service commissions, given the need for focus, and given the need to carry this message out in a more precise way, so we are struggling now within the administration to get that detachment, and that emphasis out to the public.
You see what we have to understand as well, Mr. Chairman, with due respect is that this police service commission has now become very, very different from all other service commissions in terms of the constitutional mandate, the scope of work and the depth to which that work has to go, so we cannot be treated as any other service commission anymore.

And in answer to your question, we are working to have our own independent website at present.

Mr. Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Chairman: Okay.

Before I go to Mrs. Cornelis, I think the point has to be made that changes were made because of concerns of efficiency or lack of efficiency in the commission and in the police service.

So I think you have a new remit but I think the question of how quickly that remit could be effectively discharged is of most important consideration to the public.

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis you had a question?

Mrs. Cornelis: Yes, my question is back to the surveys issue and the meeting with the people.
Because I am seeing here for the year 2009, you said you staged 11 stakeholder meetings and two people for a. I looked at the pictures you had with 20 people in it, and I know you said you cannot meet with many people, but what is the point of doing a survey if you are not doing a 241 proper representation of the public, and getting that opinion.

Then your survey gives you findings which maybe bias to what you may want to achieve, because you are picking to me—picking and choosing.
I mean I am asking who the stakeholders are, and I would love if you can give to the joint select committee what you consider to be the stakeholders.

May be you are missing some groups and we might be able to help you, because it is no point going out having stakeholder meeting when you have not properly defined who are the ―stakeholders‖ and the stakeholder are 1.3 million people; that is your stakeholders in Trinidad and Tobago.
Prof. Deosaran: When Dr. Sumersar-Rai, was speaking I was tempted to add to what to he was saying for the same reason you are raising, and for the same reason that Sen. Cudjoe was prompted to ask the question.

It is my view as Chairman, and being appointed just two months, that our survey methodology needs to be improved.
And it is very interesting to hear, Dr. Sumersai-Rai, use the word scientific, because what he was saying really—it drops close to that, and maybe there are some elements that we have missed that would make it scientific, but from what he had said so far— and I say this quite reluctantly, but I must answer your question faithfully, you are asking a good question, it passed my mind—you cannot have a scientific survey if it is not representative and therefore, having stakeholders in Tobago and Parent Teachers Association, and I had advised the commission, and in fact, I will emphasis the point more we need to have a scientific survey, and it has to be representative nationwide, which is I think what you were asking for.
And more that that alongside that survey, I would like to have what he is speaking about a panel system that a group of few hundred people regularly ask in them as stakeholders, but that should be supplementary to the national scientific survey which you are talking about, meaning first of all it has to be representative, and that is a defect in some of the public opinion polls that we have we do not get the representativeness of their methodology.
So you are right, Senator, Minister, and we are going to make it scientific and the next time we will describe the scientific nature of it, and Dr. Sumersai-Rai himself will do so on a next occasion, and possibly with some results.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, Thank you for that question.


Before I go to Mr. Samuel, I want to inject a new thought into the discussions today, and that is the question of white-collar crime as it relates to corruption; and as it relates to matters such as anti-money laundering; financing of terrorism; drugs and so on.
My intuition is that citizens feel that the ―small-man: gets the brunt of the attention of the public 242 service—the ―small-man‖ and you would know what I mean by the small-man in our own lexicon, but the ―big-boy‖ sufficient attention is not being paid to addressing these matters of white-collar crime.
Do you believe based on what you have seen, and your survey, and your assessment so far that the police service is sufficiently and effectively resourced to deal with this matter of white-collar crime, as it will address corruption and other factors.

Prof. Deosaran: Generally, Mr. Chairman, they attack on white-collar crime, but this countries‘ police service has been very deficient, but for several reasons.

Previous enquiries have revealed that the first drawback is the question of resources.
To tackle and investigate white-collar crime you need a level of expertise that you will not require in tackling what you call ―small-man‖ crimes, that is one reason.

So the police service has to be resourced properly.
The second part to the answer will be we have not really examined in detail the capacity of this present service— police service to deal with it, but I have a very strong suspicion it is the same case, because you have one unit that is responsible for several cases going on at the same time, several cases going on at the same time which demand forensic analysis, which depends on a level of expertise that prompts us to seek foreign expertise with white collar-crime forensics, accountants, and so on.
So what we need in the police service, in answer to your question, is an expanded unit, staffed with all the expertise that you need to deal with white-collar crime.

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, when I looked at the figures in terms of the detection rate for fraud, embezzlement and so on—and I refer to the crime statistics a short while ago—the detection rate is very, very low.
I am quite sure that the conviction rate will be even lower because the big boys you talked about have the capacity, financially—with due respect to present counsel—to hire the best lawyer in the country to defend them and rightly so.

The small man does not have that resource.

So inevitably and cumulatively, it is the small man who gets the pressure compared to the big man for several reasons.

We need to create a better balance of social justice in this country.
Mr. Chairman: So you are saying that sufficient attention is not being paid to the big boy with regard to white-collar crime?

Is that what I am hearing you are saying?

Prof. Deosaran: By implication, yes.

Mr. Chairman: By implication?

Prof. Deosaran: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Okay!

There was a question, Mr. Samuel?

243 Mr. Samuel: Mr. Chairman, thank you again.

There are two questions I want to pose to the Commission.

One: why is it that the larceny of motor vehicles is placed under minor crimes?
Based upon the 2000 baseline, it is 3,008.

My question is: do we have any clue as to where these vehicles are going in Trinidad and Tobago, a small island like Trinidad and Tobago, 3,008 in a given year?

That is the 2000 situation.

I am sure it has escalated far beyond that.

Two: Prof. Deosaran, you said that the reporting mechanism to the nation, one of the reasons is to solicit support from the nation.
What do you foresee as the problems from your reporting to the nation with regards to the appetite of the nation?

The nation has a appetite as things happen, as events happen, and your reporting to the nation maybe from the standpoint of having a vision forward and your trends may be taking the service in a particular direction, but it may not be in harmony with the present appetite of the nation and it may have some adverse efforts upon what you are doing.
How do you envisage to counter that or to really deal with those adverse situations based upon the appetite?

With the high crime situation everybody wants blood and your reporting as you strategize maybe in a particular direction and it may not be harmonious with the appetite of the nation, how do you envisage to deal with all of that?

Prof. Deosaran: If I understand your question, Sir, and trying to tweak it in the way I should answer.
I said just now that there is a big difference from my short experience as Chairman of this Commission, that what I say gets reported differently.

That is a communication issue as far as the media and reaching the public appetite.

Do you mind if I mention the media in this, because that is where the message goes?
A good example is what I said just now, that if the commissioner of police after repeated measures does not perform well there is only one option, because he himself said so when he had just come.

I have the headlines; I have all these newspapers clippings.

He said, ―If I do not perform well, well then fire me.‖ So, I was not saying anything new, except that I was referring to my constitutional mandate to measure—that will be the commission—and if the performance is not satisfactory, repeatedly.
But the media never uses the word ―repeatedly‖ and it looked as if I was presumptuous, I was premature and the media itself used the word ―premature‖ even though they themselves did not use the word ―repeatedly‖.

So all these communication traps, I do not how to deal with it because you have a free press and you must have a free press.
So, we are trying to engage the public in the best way we could do possibly, and I would hate to 244 be in a position to always writing explanations to be the press and correcting them.

There was an editorial which shows me that there is little quality control in editorial writing sometimes because the recklessness in which those statements were made, and then you have to correct them afterwards.
So with our newsletter and our regular press conference, and notwithstanding the public appetite for what you talk about blood and so on, we will have to swim our way through these waters because it is a democratic society.

I do not know any other solution.

Mr. Chairman: Brig.

Sandy, you wanted to ask a question?


Mr. Samuel: Mr. Chairman, just one question with regard to—what feedback mechanism would you put in place for the public as you develop the communication process to respond probably to your letter, to your magazines, whatever?

Prof. Deosaran: That is good point.

It has to be a two-way because of our public accountability obligation.
I think the website would help a long way in getting the feedback that we need, but more than that, the scientific survey which Miss Cudjoe and Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis implied, in those measures and surveys, we will have a section for public feedback.

I do not know how much to trust those televisions polls and so on.
I am not going to rely on that in any scientific way, but we will command the agenda in terms of getting the most valid and reliable data we could through the scientific approach we are going to take in terms of our survey methodology and that will have a firm set of questions about how the public feels about the commissioner and about crime generally in several specific indicators.

But feedback is important, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Chairman: The new role that you are required to play is not so new anymore since going back to 2007.

But in the new role that you are required to play there is need for interaction drilling down into the public service, below that of deputy commissioners to get a sense of the performance of the commissioner and the deputy commissioners.
Are you getting the level of cooperation that you expect in terms of going to the police stations and in terms of the other things that you have to do across the police service in order to be able to do a proper evaluation— the level of cooperation, are you getting that?

Prof. Deosaran: So far Mr. Gray who is Asst.

Director of the Evaluation Unit, but more so, Ms. Sarie Maniram who is Asst Director in the Audit Unit, they have been visiting and the responses so far are generally satisfactory.
There are times when there is some resistance by the police officers because they feel you are coming to probe and get into their business, but it is not so.

So what we did, on the recent occasion we—the Police Service Commission—met the Commissioner 245 of Police and his Executive and asked him to develop a system of accessibility for us.

He has promised to do.


So we will indicate to him which station or which unit we are going to visit to carry out our role and he has assured us that, yes, he will facilitate our visits.

Mr. Chairman: So no resistance to what you are seeking to do?

Prof. Deosaran: No!

I would not make that complaint now.

No!

Mr. Chairman: Okay.

Good!

Brig.

Sandy, you wanted to ask a question?

Brig.

Sandy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Through you, I wish to return to Mr. Khan who lamented the possibility of a scourge with respect to complaints and the inability of the tribunal to deal with it adequately.

Is there some method, a chain of command, possibly, that someone who is aggrieved has to observe before getting to the commission, or is it a situation where any officer can arbitrarily apply to the commission for redress?
Mr. Khan: In the case of the disciplinary appeals, once the tribunal set up by the police service itself, hears and determines the appeal, then the police officer may come directly to the Appeals Tribunal and file an appeal and, he has 14 days in which to do from the date that he receives the decision of the commissioner.
In the case of promotional appeals, he has a right to ask the commissioner to review and after the review is done, if he is not satisfied, then he may file an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal.
I understand from a meeting we had with the Police Social and Welfare Association that the Association is dissatisfied with a number of matters concerning promotion, and I know that at least one test case has been filed before the tribunal in which we hope to deal with a case management concerning that appeal on June 28, 2011.

Everything lies with the commissioner.


The commissioner has the complete power to manage the police service, to make decisions on disciplinary matters and promotions, and it depends on what the commissioner does that makes a police officer dissatisfied.

Brig.

Sandy: But having regard to the evidence of the past, why would you think that there will a avalanche of complaints— Mr. Khan: Well, I did not use the word ―avalanche‖.

Brig.
Brig.

Sandy: Well, yes, but you were suggesting that— Mr. Khan: I said that police officers are encouraged, and this happens in every case where a tribunal is set up to deal with appeals or reviews, that the police officer, if they are dissatisfied— that is the basic condition—will then be encouraged to file appeals with the tribunal.

246 Brig.

Sandy: But based on what you have said earlier, is there any evidence to suggest that there will be much more complaints coming to the tribunal?
Mr. Khan: Well based on the number of appeals that were filed in 2010, when this commission took up office in July of 2010 there were five appeals.

Since then, during the remainder of 2010 and up to the present time in 2011, we have eight more appeals filed.

Now if that is a trend, then that supports my statement of encouragement, and the possibility of more appeals being filed.

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin, you had a question?

Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin: Yes.

Thank you.


How do to plan to address what seem to be disparities between collection of evidence and actual detection of crime?

Prof. Deosaran: That is a question for the Commissioner of Police.

Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin: I know, but—[Interruption] Prof. Deosaran: That is where we come in to evaluate the effectiveness of the Commissioner of Police.
That gap you are speaking about is really a troublesome issue because, if you do not have a high detection rate—not only is the detection low between the period I speak about 2006— 2010.

It has decreased further in several serious crime areas.

I am not speaking about murder.

I think sometimes we mislead ourselves when we emphasize only the murder rate, because there are some unpredictable dimensions to the murder rate that even the police would find difficulty in controlling.
But in answer to your question, Mrs. Alleyne-Toppin, it is an area that we are going to monitor and evaluate the Commissioner of Police on.

I cannot say anything further than that.

Not now.

Mr. Chairman: Before I go to Miss Thomas, there is something I wanted to ask you about in terms of regulations and, that is, in other service commissions there is the ability to make its own regulations, is that the case with the Police Service Commission?
Prof. Deosaran: So far yes, because my predecessors, both, Mr. Christopher Thomas more so, and then Mr. Nizam Mohammed, they have used what you would call the doctrine of necessity and, the same provision you are speaking to that that we are able to regulate our own decisions.

But that is just a temporary situation.


We are moving into having our own regulations and that is why the consultant hired by the DPA—next to me—a retired judge, but the judge advised us to clean up certain things before we can get into developing the regulations.

The answer to your question is: we do not have our own stipulated regulation.

We are moving in the context of what I just mentioned, the doctrine of necessity.

247 Mr. Chairman: That you can make your own regulations?

Subject to what?
Subject to what?

Negative resolution of the Parliament?

Prof. Deosaran: Well, you do not make your own regulations, you make your own procedures to manage what you are doing but you cannot really make your own regulations, not in the statutory sense, I do not think we can do that, not yet, but we are reaching there.

It worries us because when I came in there and asked for regulations to guide my own decisions, the Board is up in the air still, but we are trying to bring it down and--.
Mr. Chairman: Okay.

Mrs. Thomas, you had a question.

Mrs. Thomas: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I want to ask the Chairman, I know there is a problem for resources but are there any plans of the commission to recommend the reintroduction of community policing, because if you look back, in previous times, the community police established a relationship with the community.
I mean crime was down and the police officers almost acted the position of a shadow MP for security services, and even when you look at, even for the surveys, because of the relationship that was established, there is that link to get a true representation of how the community feels, so I just want to know if there are any plans for the reintroduction of that.

Prof. Deosaran: Should I answer?


This is the cry of the public to have a more community oriented policing but our message from the present Commissioner of Police is that is the direction he wants to head into, he calls it proactive policing and so, but it has to be deeper than just being proactive.

You have to reach the point in which you are speaking about in the community itself.
I do not want to say bring back the old time days but people must not only fear police officer but will respect a police officer, and as we used to do in days gone by, support the police officer in the district.

Certain things have happened that kind of subvert the operation of the community policing.

One is that the frequent transfers of one officer from one district to another, and to me that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs with respect to promoting community policing.
Secondly, and with due respect to the police service, Mr. Chairman, the suspicion and allegations of police corruption have risen unfortunately, and that has created a disconnect between the public confidence that will be needed to support community policing, and the effective presence of police in the community, in that, rather than looking upon police officers with respect, it seems to have a different perception unfortunately.
248 So in activating community policing, Senator, we need to do a number of things simultaneously and not just by announcement, and I hope that this present commissioner as he has seemed determined to do, will reintroduce, if not all but most of those elements in the community.
Mr. Chairman: Let me draw to your attention, under the parameters for monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of the Commissioner of Police, item VI, Mr. Chairman, that you have as one of the areas for monitoring as community policing and under it: Initiatives, special units, outreach programmes, school visitation, liaison with special interest and evidence of support from communities.
So I think it is part of your mandate that you have self-imposed, and it is something that we would certainly want to ensure that you pursue.

Prof. Deosaran: Yes Sir.

Sorry?

It is a very important question because whilst we are looking at policies at the top and the constitution and so on, the real action for effective policing takes place at the ground level -- police station by police station, street by street.
So in addition to the concerns expressed by Minister Baptiste-Cornelis and Sen. Cudjoe, part of our methodology, apart from the scientific approach that we will now take will be to select a random sample of police stations across the country, and do some close up case studies, one by one, to look at responses by victims to see how complaints are treated, to see how the resources are managed in each police station.
So in addition to the survey we have taken in a global sense, we are going to insert some of those case studies to have a more qualitative understanding of what happens with respect to community policing because community policing has to be police station based—district by district.
One of the proposals that—well, I have made and I will repeat it and I will see if the commission will agree—is that to foster community support for the police and to create a kind of quasi oversight mechanisms driven by public support, I believe that each police station should have a citizens‘ oversight body, not legally constituted, but the police will know the citizens are looking at them too, the citizens are willing to help them too, and that partnership will also be an important element in community policing.
So community policing should not be driven only by the police because community policing also means some input by community as well.

Mr. Chairman, let me take the opportunity to make a correction to something I said.

Section 129 in the Constitution does allow for the Service Commission to make its own regulation—I am very sorry about the error, I need to correct myself—but with the permission of the Prime Minister— 249 the approval of the Prime Minister.

I am very sorry.
I am very sorry.

Mr. Chairman: I thought you would have known that but I see that you have corrected yourself.

Prof. Deosaran: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Abdulah, your question.

Mr. Abdulah: Thank you Mr. Chairman.


From this document that was supplied to us which is your parameters for monitoring efficiency and effectiveness of the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioners of Police, the monitoring parameters are being detailed, I supposed or drilled down into some 15 areas, each one of those 15 areas with a number of subsidiary points.

Now, several things arise in my mind, through you Chair that I wish to ask the commission to elaborate on.
Firstly, whether the commission is satisfied that the Commissioner of Police and his Deputy Commissioners—I think there are two—can, in fact, account for at the appraise on all of these parameters when perhaps they do not have direct responsibility for many of them.

That is one question because it is extremely broad.

Secondly, how are these going to be measured?


I know that you had some baseline data in some of the areas but in some of the areas, there is no baseline data in terms of how these things are actually measured.
And thirdly, how are they weighted, in other words, is your weighting of fleet management, for example: Number and titled vehicles; percentage in good working conditions; maintenance programme; equitable employment and so on, is that given the same weight as managing human resources or your implementation of sophisticated ICT mechanisms for policing?
And then, if it is not being implemented because there are resource constraints to the police service, how do you discount the non implementation or nonperformance in that area based upon factors that are outside of the management of police commissioner.
Related to that, is there an effective performance appraisal for the ranks below that which is not your responsibility directly, but as an oversight body to make sure that there is a proper performance appraisal system for the ranks below that of Deputy Commissioner, so that your assistant commissioners of police, your divisional commanders, your senior superintendents, your superintendents, and your assistant superintendents, your inspectors which are at the police stations.
In other words, if we are to have an efficient and effective police service then performance has to be measured at key levels throughout the service and not only at the top.

250 So I wanted to get a sense of whether this is happening because I think the ordinary citizens out there does not feel that there are targets and these targets are being measured and that senior officers are being held accountable by way of a proper appraisal system.
So you may put in a good appraisal system for the three people at the very top, and if there is none lower down then it is going to breakdown.

Mr. Chairman: Several questions.

Prof. Deosaran: Very important in terms of how do we operationalize our monitoring and appraisal system; you are quite right.
Firstly, there are some objectives stated by the Police Commissioner and even there are some parameters that we are embarking upon that will face difficulty in quantifying, we are aware that not all police work could be precisely quantified.

Secondly, we are therefore moving to select a core set of issues that could be periodically evaluated.

The others that you speak about, for example, how do you monitor, appraise or evaluate the lower ranks—sergeants and inspectors.
Mr. Abdulah, that is a vital part of the mission, we have to do that.

Because if you evaluate and appraise only the senior officers—the commissioner and the deputies—we will not be as informed as we could be if we measure also those ranks as you have mentioned.

I will allow Mr. Alfred Gray who is the Assistant Director of the Evaluation Unit and also Dr. Rai to explain further.
But before I do so, the system we are now embarking upon, selecting these police stations for assessment will enable us to rise to the level of inspectors in that assessment, about their performance in management and so on.

Thirdly, you raised a very important question.


Our mission, the mission of the commission and we have agreed upon this, is not only to look at the evaluation exercise or the appraisal exercise as a punitive endeavour, we also want to see how we can help the Police Commissioner, the Police Service to achieve its own mission by some guidance depending on the data that we have.
So it is not going to be purely punitive, it is not intended to be, it will be of a sort of mutual benefit to both of us as partners in the exercise—reducing crime.

The point you made is that the commission, commissioner and the police service itself will face resource issues and in the evaluation, we will have to be careful that—we take note of that in coming to whatever recommendations that we will make.
So that is the issue that I have spoken about: fairness, and that is where an element of fairness will enter.

Mr. Chairman, would you mind if I ask Mr. Gray to elaborate and Dr. Rai?

251 Mr. Gray: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Committee, remember when we started, we discussed the issue of monitoring and evaluating, and based on the question asked, the parameter, the 39 parameters that were identified, that is continuously done by the monitoring department.
Those are not stand alone, they cannot stand by themselves, it is in a particular context they are seen in that the Commissioner of Police identified four areas in which he will focus and he referred to them as his areas.
So as the monitoring to their continuous exercise in the police service, this is fed into the evaluation unit, and the evaluation unit will look at those priority areas that were identified as his area of concern, and coming out of that, you will have the exercise of evaluating the performance of the commissioner.
So you will not be looking at the question of the lower ranks because that is done in the monitoring process, you are looking at the priority areas that were identified as his focus—as the commissioner's focus.

So if we are to appreciate the process, we will understand that the parameters that were indentified are a continuous exercise and it is fed into the evaluation process.

Mr. Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Rai.

Mr. Sumersar-Rai: Thank you Mr. Chairman.


First of all, yes, Mr. Abdulah, you are accurate in raising the issue of weighting, and weights will be attached to the various parameters as we pursue the appraisal format.

Dr. Sumersar-Rai: Just for clarification, we are in the process of developing an appraisal format that will look at the performance of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Police, in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness and for each category.
That format will contain certain categories.

That will address the issues of governance, human resource and so on.

So, there will be weights attached to the various parameters.

However, the idea behind these parameters was that we would first examine what is on the ground, in terms of the police service, and to do that, we have to conduct an audit.
We understand fully that our mandate is to primarily monitor and appraise the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Police, but as several persons have mentioned here, in order to do that, in order to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners, we need to look at the overall police service.
One, in terms of directives given by the Commissioner, in terms of managing crime, dealing with the issue of prevention of crime and detection of crime, and then in terms of how the officers at the various ranks actually carry out/perform their duty which directly impact on the levels of crime 252 and the issues of the safety of citizens in the society.

We are looking at several processes on the first hand.
The data from those processes are then utilized to conduct the appraisal, so it is not just one thing that you are going to do, or two things you are looking at.
Therefore, that is why these parameters have been detailed in this manner, so that it gives us a maximum panoramic view of what is taking place on the ground, as well as through the entire organization to give you a better idea of what the happens a top how strategy that that have been idea of what is happening at the top, how the strategies that have been developed are being implemented and what is the impact of those strategies on the issues that the society face as a whole.
Mr. Chairman: I think the question with regard to weighing was seeking to address whether, in terms of let us say a balance scorecard, one area would be weighted higher than the other, whether it is 50 per cent of 20 per cent or whatever.

I did not get that sense that you have a clear perspective that there will be a weighting that addresses what percentage of the assessment will go to different areas.

Do you care to address that?

It is something that you have in place or you plan to put in place?
Prof. Deosaran: The way the question was raised by Sen. Abdulah and yourself is an important issue.

Because let us take the detection rate, I would want to give that a higher weight, a bigger weight than something else like another issue which we will consider of lesser harm to the public, for example.

I would consider that very seriously and I am sure the evaluation team would have to take on board, because not all things are equal with respect to policing.
Mr. Chairman: I think that is at the core of it.

That has been not been done yet.

Prof. Deosaran: No, not to my knowledge.

Mr. Prescott SC: Mr. Chairman, this would be my second and last question.

In the document presented to us, the parameters for monitoring, I observe that there is reference to the Police Complaints Authority twice and it does not appear to be among the key stakeholders that the Police Service Commission envisages.

This document was prepared in 2009.


This chairman certainly would not have been the part of it.

There are other longer-serving commissioners in your commission.

Would you not think that the Police Complaints Authority and the important work that they do, in particular where the public has to get an opportunity to view the treatment of police behaviour, should rank amongst your key stakeholders?

The second part of that question is how, if at all, are you relating with that authority today?
253 Prof. Deosaran: The Police Complaints Authority?

Mr. Prescott SC: Yes.

Prof. Deosaran: We are relating the directly, and as time goes on, more and more fully, we expect with the Police Complaints Authority.

The evidence of that is just last week we had a meeting with the Director of the Police Complaints Authority, Miss Gillian Lucky and Mr. Doyle and we also crafted a way forward that we can meet regularly.

They are, indeed, Sen. Prescott SC, a key partner.


I mentioned their names earlier on in my opening remarks, in terms of meeting with them, like we would need with the Ministry of National Security and the Attorney General.

The answer to your question is yes, indeed.

We need no further persuasion about that.


This is an indispensable partner in gathering data because we have to know the extent of complaints and in what areas, so that we will have a better picture of the management of the police service, in terms of police integrity and efficiency.

The answer is: Yes.

It is a key stakeholder.

We have met.

We will continue to meet.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Gray you wanted to add something?
Mr. Gray: I would like to say at the time when that document was written, there was no board in place at the Police Complaints Authority.

Hence, the reason the Police Complaints Authority was not listed a stakeholder in that report.

Mr. Chairman: Miss Cudjoe, you had a question?

Miss Cudjoe: It the same question about the Police Complaints Authority that he asked.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, good.

Let me just inject another thought into this discussion and it has to do with the public sector overall.
We have been hearing, as a committee, concerns about fragmentation, in terms of the process of, of course, recruitment, training, performance assessment and disciplinary action across the public services, and part of the issue was that there were deficiencies, in terms of resources, physical but more importantly human resources, having the necessary number of people to do the work of the various commissions, and I suspect in your case, that question comes up.
Much of that is the responsibility, still, of the Director of Personnel Administration, what has been the situation to date, in terms of filling some of the vacancies that you would have been reported the last time we spoke?

Prof. Deosaran: I would like to invite our DPA and then maybe I would come in afterwards, if there is anything missing.
254 Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Since we last spoke, in terms of the vacancies that we have, we have set up some interview panels, in terms of addressing some of the outstanding vacancies.

I am looking for my documentation, in terms of where we are what has been done, just give me one moment, in terms of the status of the persons.

Prof. Deosaran: In the meantime—if you do not mind while I fill in the space.

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: Sure.

Prof. Deosaran: What has happened to this Secretariat?
We have a 50 per cent vacancy rate and that is quite clearly affecting our performance, but we are not going to complain too much.

We are moving to fill the vacancies.

Secondly, we would like the Commission to have a role in the recruitment process because of experience and understanding of the mandate and to help ensure that we get the kinds of expertise that the secretariat requires.

There is also a mixture of contract officers and permanent staff, so to speak, under the Public Service Regulations.
I think we need to see if that is a very comfortable arrangement.

Now I would turn you over to the DPA.

Mr. Chairman: Before I turn to the DPA now that you have raised that matter, are you satisfied with the mechanisms to ensure that you are properly resources, in terms of human resources?

You said—in a sense, I got the sense, no.

But the question is what can you do, in terms of the drafting of regulations that would help you to more effectively fill the requirements for human resources?
Prof. Deosaran: If you are asking me, Sir, an ideal position, and I mentioned earlier on what the debate in Parliament was about, and again I say so out of necessity, I participated in that debate in framing the legislation for the Police Service Commission, the amendments, and the message from the Executive at that time, based on the Mastrofski proposals and also the spirit in Parliament was to have this secretariat as a permanent secretariat, relativity self-sufficient in being able to acquire its own staff in its own ways and not be just another service commission.
I am not talking about the personnel in the position.

I am talking about the structure.

It is really not amenable, not facilitative, not conducive to what the secretariat of the Police Service Commission now requires.

I think we need administrative reform or some kind of reform that will give us the capacity and the confidence and the opportunity to build capacity in the secretariat and less dependence on the service commissions facilities.
I think we have outgrown 255 that stage with due respect, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: But, do you see yourself then injecting that requirement into the new regulations or the regulation that you are about to draft?
Prof. Deosaran: Well, were could look at it, but I cannot give you an authoritative answer because there might be implications, either in terms of the Constitution or in terms of the existing legislation but it certainly is a matter receiving active consideration and that is why we have met with what you call the PMCD and we are meeting with them again to see how far we can go under present circumstances without causing any undue disturbance right now.
Later reforms, more substantive might come about, perhaps, when the Executive is of that view as well.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, would the DPA care to comment.

Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: May I, at this point, take off from where the Chairman left off.

When we were here last we spoke about the inadequate structure that we had, in terms of the majority of positions were created on contract and the difficulty we had in attracting persons, based on the salary set by the CPO at the time.
In discussion with the Chairman, we have been engaging the PMCD and we last had a meeting on Friday, in terms of looking at the new structure and looking to determine to what extent the structure can be improved to lend more efficiency towards the requirements of the Commission.

In the meantime, as we are meeting with the PMCD, the contract positions that are there, we are trying to see how best we can fill them.
We have some interviews that we are going to schedule at the end of this month June or by early July, and based on what the Chairman has said, in terms of the commission input, the commission will be on the panel to select the persons.

I am referring specifically to positions like the financial analyst, research specialist, evaluation specialist, where we did not find anyone suitable.
We have since gone out and we have gotten two or three persons who have indicated and interest and we have to meet at the end of June/July.

In the case of the communication specialist, the person who was there, I told you the person had resigned and we have since done a Ministerial Note that has going to PMCD, in terms of having the position for another three years because once it is a contract position PMCD has to comment.

We have been liaising with PMCD up to yesterday and we are awaiting the comments.
The Note to the Cabinet is already done but we need to get the comments of the PMCD to attach to the Note to take to the Cabinet to get a position created for another three years.

Cabinet has recently agreed for the temporary positions that were created.

I am talking about the 256 case management officer, the Research Human Resource Advisor to and some business opt.

Cabinet has recently agreed that those positions can be extended for another three years.

I got the Cabinet Note yesterday.


With that in mind, were should be able -- we had some persons who had indicated an interest.

We can move to see whether we can recruit those persons.

In the case of business off of business opt, one person who had indicated an interest only last week Wednesday, we made contact with this account person and she said she is still interested.
The note has been done to the Minister because the Minister can approve persons on contract and we are awaiting word on that decision.

We have made some effort in that regard to get additional staff for the commission.

But even with the additional staff, I have been having discussion with the Chairman for what he thinks might be the most appropriate structure for the commission in terms of what has been stymieing the commission in delivering.
The Chairman mentioned the structure in the sense that when the structure was approved by Cabinet, the most senior person in the structure apart from the DPA was the Director, Evaluation, a person on contract.

So I think what the Chairman has been indicating, he would have liked to see maybe a more permanent person heading the structure rather that somebody on contract, for continuity, and now we are looking at PMCD about fixing those deficiencies.
Mr. Chairman: Well, from what you have said, it sounds like a somewhat protracted process that may not suit the needs of a new, vibrant Police Service Commission and probably it needs to have another look to see how you can fill those needs, because the last time you said you were 50 per cent staffed, and I do not think you have changed much from that 50 per cent staffing.

Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis wanted to ask a question.


Mrs. Baptiste-Cornelis: I just wanted to—again it follows on that with the 50 per cent staff, and then I heard the Chairman say that the Commission wanted to play a more significant role.

So that through you, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the DPA, is it normal that the commissioners would be on the panel interviewing contract staff, is that the norm, or is that going to be a precedent?
Mrs. Edwards-Joseph: No it is not a norm, but we try to facilitate as much as we can in terms of the commission‘s request.

For example, when persons like Dr. Kerry Sumersar-Rai was recruited, the then Chairman sat on the committee to assess the person to be brought in.

So although it is not the norm, we try to build some flexibility into the system to allow the 257 commissioners to have a say, because we have to bear in mind that at the end of the day the commissioners have to work with these individuals.
So we facilitate.

Mr. Samuel: This is a question not necessarily to the Chairman of the Commission, but generally.

As you have sat, I know Chairman, you have just been for two months, but the Commission has existed for a little bit longer than that.

In order of priorities, what are some of the things you see that are necessary to implement in order to have a far more effective and efficient police service, an order of five?
Prof. Deosaran: The way you asked the question, are you asking it of me as the newly appointed chairman, not on behalf of the commission?

Or are you asking me as Chairman—on behalf of the Commission?

Mr. Samuel: On behalf of the Commission.

Prof. Deosaran: Oh, because there might be a slight difference.

I think the Commission is of the view now, the very strong view arising out of a meeting we had last week—Mr.
Parker, Mr. Khan and Ms. Cheeseman could confirm that—that the secretariat should reflect the spirit of the debate which took place in Parliament, meaning it should be a permanent secretariat.

I do not think, with due respect to him, that Prof. Stephen Mastrofski understood the public service implications and the implications of having this secretariat connected in the normal way to the Service Commission Department.
I also believe he did not understand the differences in jurisdiction, therefore, the proposal he made, he assumed from what I read about the proposal, and when I was in Parliament, I listened to the debate and when I heard the Executive at the time, the Minister of National Security speaking, the assumption was that this secretariat would not be so connected as it is now to the Service Commission Department.
It would have a more—I do not want to use the word ―autonomy‖, there would be some relationship, of course, but it needs to be more autonomous, so to speak, and that is a strong view of the commission.

This is no reflection on the DPA‘s office or anything like that, it is a matter of structure and moving with the demands of the moment.
The demands put upon us in terms of expeditiousness, in terms of scope of work, in terms of getting our expertise ready and running, in terms of getting resources to do so, certainly, the secretariat should be more autonomous in all those respects together with the resources that we need.

Because the DPA, for example, the workload of the DPA‘s office if I might say so, has increased phenomenally in recent years, it cannot be the same old DPA with the same kind of 258 structure.
We are a very different commission and that is by statute, that is by expectations and if we are to carry out our duties with the precision, expeditiousness and with the effectiveness, Mr. Chairman, we need to be more autonomous to respond to what I would call the demands of the time, and to serve the country which is the more important thing.
We are dealing with crime and public safety, so we cannot be overly bureaucratized, we cannot be overly—having things superimposed upon us, we should have an accounting system to account to the Parliament for anything that we do, but we cannot remain so connected, it has caused some concern.

That is the major priority I would put.


Mr. Chairman: Mr. Chairman, there is a view circulating and I wanted to get your views on it, as well as that of Mr. Khan—that very much like we have an industrial court to deal with workers‘ complaints, there is a large body of persons who form the public sector, and there might be the need now for the establishment of a public sector court to hear complaints rather than having these complaints, issues, concerns and challenges in the various service commissions.
Do you have any views on that?

Prof. Deosaran: Well, unless you provide some more details, but would that not eventually resemble the Public Service Appeal Board?

Mr. Chairman: Probably not because you have— Prof. Deosaran: Mr. Prescott could help.

Mr. Chairman:—because you have issues and judicial reviews.

Prof. Deosaran: I know a court is a different thing but in terms of the process.
Mr. Prescott SC: It is an interesting concept and I heard the Chairman say public sector court, so it may be more expansive than the current Public Service Appeal Board which has a link with the public service.

It is probably one of those things that we can introduce to make a more efficient judicial system.
Prof. Deosaran: It is a good point, because the whole area of administrative law and public administration in terms of the expansion of the public service the whole appeal procedure in the public service really could be accommodated in something like what you are talking about for more efficiency.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Khan, you are a man of experience in this area.

Mr. Khan: Mr. Chairman, it is an idea which occurred to me a long time ago.
At the present 259 time there is a Special Tribunal of the Industrial Court but it is not really equipped to deal the complaints by public officers.

And in my view a public sector court to deal with complaints from public officers generally is an excellent idea in my view.

It needs, of course, to be explored a little more.

Prof. Deosaran: Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me?
There is a way forward blueprint that Mr. Parker and Ms. Cheeseman have been working very hard on together with senior staff of the secretariat.

Would you allow them to explain to the select committee in a few minutes what that document is about?

Mr. Parker, Ms. Cheeseman, the way forward document?

Mr. Parker: Yes, Mr. Chairman, through you.


This particular document ―Charting the Way Forward‖ is in essence a combination of what we see as our strategy from here on in through to 2015, but incorporating the excellent comments that the current chairman has raised as he came on board two months ago.
He, with the background that he brings to the commission, the background in criminology, his own experiences from the legislative standpoint, his Senatorial appointments has strengthened in a sense our internal capacity to look at the best way forward in achieving the mandate set out by the Constitution.

So that that in itself was part and parcel of the difficulties of trying to get the completion of our strategy going.
And because of his quick look at what the current circumstances were, and his own interpretation of what the Constitution was thinking, over and above what it said, that he had brought some of those comments and experiences to the whole overall strategy.
So we are trying to incorporate his thoughts, as well as our own assessment of what has happened between 2009 and now into focus, because as he rightly said a while ago, the remit of the Police Service Commission particularly when it comes to the business of monitoring, evaluation and effectiveness, as well as looking ahead a bit, does not allow us to think as though business as usual is going to be the case.
So that the document that we are looking at Charting the Way Forward is really trying to deal with the whole question of the intention of the constitutional remit on the one hand, and the more important and overriding concept of governance which to the commission‘s standpoint—from the commission‘s viewpoint is the critical aspect of how we make that quantum jump into the way forward.
So that the strategy document which we are currently preparing is in a sense not just a strategy to 2015, but how you chart that way forward with the expectation that at the end of that period, the business of hiring a commissioner of police and his executive is something that is much more familiar to the local circumstance as opposed to going back to where we were some 260 years prior.

Mr. Chairman: Well, thank you, Mr. Parker and I think that we will look forward to receiving that in the strategic plan.
Ms. Cheeseman, one last comment.

Ms. Cheeseman: To the Chairman, one last comment just to comment briefly on that Charting the Way Forward document.

It is a very comprehensive report as a matter of fact it really paves the way forward because it incorporates every single thing imaginable that we as a commission need to do in keeping with our mandate.
So I also wanted to thank the Chairman for putting us on that great footage at the start of his tenure, I mean it was something that came in early o‘clock and it is something that all of us would have had the opportunity to have input into, because while he would have shared his thoughts he gave us the opportunity to add to it.
So by the end of this exercise which we hope to complete by the end of July, I know we will be on the right road, and it would be an excellent tool as well for your committee, because you could keep us in check through that, because it really identifies all the areas that we need to take into consideration.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, we will await that commentary and the strategic plan.

I want wrap up now with a few comments.


The first is, what is very clear is that we need, or the commission needs to complete an assessment of the police commissioner and his three deputies by September 2011, which is not a long time we are already in June.
And I was somewhat concerned to hear in terms of the assessment process which is contained in the document dated July 20, 2009, that many of the areas have not been completed in terms of—we are hearing words: ―that we are in the process of‖, ―we will need to‖ and ―we will have to conduct an audit‖.

I want to urge the commission that there is need for acceleration of the areas under its remit in order to be able to complete an effective assessment of the police commissioner and his deputies.
These are very important considerations, the commission has a new role but the commission cannot say that its mandate is so new, because this has been in place I believe at the end of 2006 early 2007.

So you would need to run faster to make up the distance albeit your new Chairman would, of course, claim that he is newly appointed, but the commission is there and I think that is something you need to pay much cognizance to.
We have spoken today about the composition of the tribunal and areas which may need to be adjusted; the need for, maybe, full-time commissioners to deal with the tribunal.

We have spoken about the performance of the police commissioner.

We have spoken about the detection rate, and that may be even lower in terms of white collar crime.
We have spoken of the need to intensify 261 the public surveys and give proper feedback to the public as to how the Police Service Commission is discharging its own functions.

One of the concerns that I have, in looking at the new structure, is that the police commissioner is given the mandate for promotions and appointments up to the level of Assistant Commissioner of Police.
When we look at similar organizations and not so similar organizations, it really is a function of the board or the oversight authority to ensure that there is proper development, appointment and promotion of that middle sector management which feeds the organization.
Maybe it is something that needs to be looked at, but in the case of the Police Service Commission, I think it is clear that because of the appeals process, you will have a hand in terms of establishing what that middle core should look like, and while we wait for new legislation or new regulations and so on, you may want to use that to ensure that you get that core of capabilities to make our police service better.

Our citizens are very concerned.


The situation with crime has been on the front burner and of highest concern for a very long time.

We, therefore, look forward to this Police Service Commission getting the job done right; implementing what it has spoken about for the last couple of years, so that our citizens can feel safer in their homes and that we can get a better functioning police service.
In concluding, I get a sense that the workings of this Commission must have shown some sort of improvement from the last time that we met and I hope that my sense is correct so that you can get your job done for the better good, if that is a phrase, of all our citizens.

I thank you very much for your time and I declare this meeting closed.

This meeting is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

12.04 p.m.: Meeting adjourned.
262 Appendix 5 Status of Vacancies Within the Teaching Service for the period 2005 - 2011 263 THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO AND REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND SERVICE COMMISSIONS WITH THE EXCEPTIONOF THE JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION 264 Vacancies in Administrative Offices: 2005-2011 Principal Vice Principal Total Deans/HOD and Senior Teachers Vacancies 2005 to 2009 479 251 2,132 2,862 Positions filled over the period 2006-2009 Vacancies as at December 2009 New Vacancies arising in 2010 Total vacancies 2010 Less positions filled in 2010 Vacancies as at December 2010 New vacancies 2011 Total vacancies Source: Report on the Administration of the Teaching Service Commission submitted to the Joint Select Committee of Parliament February 25th, 2011 265