THE EDITOR, Sir:
I WRITE in response to some comments, carried in your newspaper of March 5, 2003, reportedly made by Audley Shaw, Opposition Spokesman on Finance, in connection with my being asked by the Government to, inter alia, review the process of appointment of consultants in the Public Sector.
If Mr. Shaw was quoted accurately, I must say that I find his remarks unwarranted and unacceptable; and, in the circumstances, I find it necessary to set the record straight.
I have served this country through the Public Sector, to the best of my ability, for some 35 years. This period of service, includes eight and one-half years, in a most sensitive position dealing with an industry which was quite critical in respect of the country's foreign exchange earnings and government revenues, during which time the party to which Mr. Shaw belongs formed the Government of Jamaica. Both his Party Leader, and the then Minister, who had portfolio responsibility for the industry, who remains my good friend, will, I am sure, confirm that I did not stint in my service and did so with competence and integrity, and at a time when, for a good period, the international aluminum industry experienced severe crisis.
Nothing has happened since to change the way I conduct myself in the Public Service; and, such as I have achieved, has not gone unnoticed by the Government of Jamaica, private sector organisations, a civil society organisation and the University of the West Indies.
One can understand my annoyance, therefore, when Mr. Shaw should seek to use the furore over salaries received by certain Public Sector executives a few years ago, and the current issue of consultants, to seek to impugn my competence and integrity.
In respect of the former, the facts are: (a) my own salary was not at issue; (b) I played no part in the determination of salaries that were the subject of controversy; and (c) my 'holes' (which I interpret Mr. Shaw to mean imprecision or inaccuracy) in the data on literally hundreds of salaries which were submitted to Parliament, were as a result of what was sent to us (despite requests that they be checked out for their reliability) and therefore blame could not be laid at my feet.
In the event, the appointment of the Walker Committee could not by any stretch of the imagination be interpreted as a repudiation of what I had done as Mr. Shaw gratuitously tried to imply. What the Walker Committee did was to focus on a handful of the hundreds of executive salaries and identify systemic problems.
I might say that our collective experience on this issue informed: (a) the setting up of a High-Level Review Group, to consider salary proposals to public officials in the amount of $3 million and over; and (b) the enactment of The Public Sector Bodies (Management and Accountability) Act which, among other things, states in quite specific terms, the types of information public bodies must submit and the penalties which apply if they don't. I would have thought that these actions were a sensible and civilised resolution of the problems which existed.
It has been my experience that aggression and "badmanship" never provide a satisfactory solution to any problem, but determination and civility certainly will achieve the desired objectives with a modicum of deportment which the country desperately needs at this time.
In regard to the current issue of the appointment of consultants in the Public Sector, the position must be made clear, that I have no involvement in the appointment of the vast majority of them. I am, of course, involved in those relating to the Cabinet Office for which I have responsibility as Accounting Officer; and in addition, there a few others which have been referred to me, for one reason or the other, from time to time.
Mr. Shaw needs to know, if he does not know already, that the post of Cabinet Secretary and titular (word used advisedly as there is the feeling that the post is some sort of a CEO) Head of the Civil Service does not mean I am involved in, or know about the vast majority of appointments which are made daily in the Public Sector. This is not how the system works as even a cursory reading of the relevant sections of the Constitution will confirm.
If I might be presumptuous to give a bit of advice to Mr. Shaw, it is that he needs to comport himself when he deals with issues over which he has a disagreement.
If, in the instant case, his objective is to intimidate, it will not work; if it is to sully my reputation, it will not work either, for as they say in cricket 'the runs are already on the board'.
I am, etc.,
CARLTON E. DAVIS
Cabinet Secretary
1 Devon Road
Kingston 6
