Public boards need rules

(CNS): People who serve on government boards for public authorities where they also have business interests are being called into question. There are currently a number of boards where members face potential conflicts of interest, raising concerns in the community. How boards are appointed, how political they should be and where the line is drawn between experience and business interest are topical issues that have been raised by the Commission for Standards in Public Life. North Side MLA Ezzard Miller says that what is needed is a proper set of rules and standards to govern how boards are selected and how they operate.

Recent changes to the board overseeing the airport on Grand Cayman were questioned by a number of CNS readers, who asked whether it was ethical to have a chair who was an airline agent and one member whose firm handles the security at Owen Roberts International. However, this is by no means the first or only instance where members of the more than the one hundred government boards and other public authority councils may be conflicted. Historically, the membership on boards, such as planning, the public transport board, those relating to business licensing and immigration, among others, have all been called into question.

The Commission for Standards in Public Life recently raised the issue of qualification of board members and the need for more technical expertise in its latest report to the Legislative Assembly. Miller also says there needs to be a proper set of rules that define how the boards are selected and run. Furthermore, he stated that people who are appointed to boards often take the money but don’t take on the responsibility that serving requires.

“People who have pecuniary interests or government sub-contracts should not be sitting on public boards,” the independent MLA said, adding no one should put themselves in positions where conflicts of interest arise. “But the bigger problem is that there are no common rules about how boards function and in some cases members are taking their stipend and then they are allowed to ‘goof off’. It’s time we established set of standards and expectations of what is required of members.”

The question of the politicisation of boards has also caused debate in the community. The premier has frequently stated that since boards work for government and implement government policy they should be government supporters and not be working against the elected administration.

On a number of occasions he has publicly criticised boards for dragging their feet and has stated that were he able to have more control, in particularly of the Port Authority, the cruise ship docks would already be under construction. When Bush was leader of government business in the previous UDP administration, he also served as chair on the Port Authority board.

The Commission for Standards in Public Life said in its February report that it would take an “in depth look” at statutory board appointments and how “conflicts of interest or corruption”, perceived or real, could be avoided. It said it was also interested in how qualified members were to make the best decisions falling within their remit. The CSPL, which was created under the new constitution as a watchdog for all public servants, is just one body examining the way people involved in public life behave as governance moves in to the era of transparency.

The new Anti-corruption Commission and the anti-corruption law cover statuary boards and councils. Last year the attorney general advised all those serving on government and statutory boards to pay close attention to potential conflicts of interest.

The law mandates that any public officer or MLA that has any financial interests, direct or indirect in the company or partnership or similar entity needs to make a written disclosure. “Any public officer or MLA who fails to disclose an interest as stipulated by the law and who proceeded to vote or otherwise takes part in the proceedings of the entity relating to such interest commits and offence and could face prison time of up to five years if convicted,” Samuel Bulgin explained.

Although the Anti-corruption Commission has been in place for more than a year, its members have said nothing at all publicly about its work or if it is currently carrying out any investigations. For some twelve months the chair, who is the police commissioner, has been saying that a public education campaign will soon begin. As yet, however, no dates have been set for public meetings or details of the campaign revealed. The commission was established under the anti-corruption law and not the new constitution, but the point of public contact for the body was recently placed under the Constitutional Secretariat and a hotline created for people to report cases of potential corruption.