The Editor, Sir:

Carlton Davis has now brought his wealth of experience and good sense to bear on the issue involving differences between the prime minister and the Public Service Commission. He considers it a tragedy that the matter has not been handled properly.

Perhaps the requirements of protocol prevented him from openly supporting the prime minister's right to determine who should serve in sensitive and strategic positions in the Government. Also, that it is highly necessary that there should be confidence and a good relationship between the political directorate and the civil servant.

Dr Davis might have gone further to point out that where differences arise, it is the minister's judgment that should prevail. An officer as highly placed as a permanent secretary is constitutionally subject to this condition and obviously the same rule should apply to the chief assistant to the attorney general who is also minister of justice. Section 93 of the Constitution makes it clear that, "Where any minister has been charged with the responsibility for a subject or department of Government, he shall exercise general direction and control over the work relating to the subject and over that department."

In this regard, it is of interest to cite the opinion of a highly regarded authority. Published in The Sunday Gleaner of April 28, 2002, it bears repeating now:

"Ministers and permanent secretaries have to work out an accommodation between their respective roles of 'general direction and control' and 'supervision'. Like any other working relationship, including in the private sector, this can either be non-adversarial and productive as is indeed the case for most government departments or it may not work well in some instances because of general incompatibility or fundamental disagreements between the two on policy (not involving breaches of laws, rules or procedures).

Reassign permanent secretary

"In the latter circumstances, it is best if the permanent secretary is reassigned, and this has happened on occasion. Obviously, the permanent secretary, and not the minister, because the latter is either an elected representative recommended for appointment by the prime minister, or non-elected, but nevertheless, recommended for appointment by him; and the minister is the person under whose direction and control the permanent secretary works. Therefore, given the circumstances, the minister must be given the primacy. I do not think any reasonable person could disagree with this position."

That learned opinion was signed - Carlton Davis.

In his capacity as Cabinet secretary, Dr Davis was responding in a letter titled, 'Concerning the role of permanent secretaries', which was the subject of an earlier article published the previous week.

I am, etc.,

KEN JONES

alllerdyce@hotmail.com