|
When is the position of a politically appointed officer on a Government owned company or authority no longer tenable? The resignation of Ronald Azzopardi as a member of the MEPA board makes an interesting case study on appointments of directors, members and commission members.
Following the shooting of Mr Azzopardi, a member of the MEPA board, this newspaper - in the public interest - meticulously revealed his financial position detailing substantial loans he entered into as documented in public deeds.
The borrowing of money within legal interest limits is not illegal; however the substantial sums involved were bound to raise eyebrows particularly because of his position as a MEPA board member.
Beyond the borrowings entered into, the resignation should bring under public scrutiny the method of appointments of directors on government boards. This is relevant because of potential conflicts of interest issues arising that may impede an appointee from exercising his or her role in an objective and correct manner.
The method of appointment, entrenched since time immemorial by all post-independence governments of all shades and colours, has been that choices are the prerogative of the government of the day without the necessity of any parliamentary scrutiny let alone approval. Theory has it that the minister responsible for a particular department presents names to his cabinet colleagues with the intention of acquiring their approval. Traditionally however most of the appointments were the choice of the Prime Minister of the day after discussing the matter with his closest non-elected advisors and the secretary general of the party in government. Effectively this gives the party of the day an involvement in a purely governmental choice.
This makes the healthy separation of government and party nebulous.
The practice has been accepted as a recognition of the vast patronage powers of the PM of the day who is free to reward people who have a similar political mindset and who may have rendered useful service to the party in government. Although exceptions to this practice do fortunately and wisely exist, like most antiquated systems this too needs a re-think.
It flies in the face of the value of meritocracy as the determining criterion and it is all too often service to the party rather than individual competence that is given priority. The way forward is parliamentary involvement. The government of the day should appoint a parliamentary committee to grill the persons nominated.
The grilling should not constitute an opportunity to prey into personal matters but an opportunity for parliamentarians to scrutinise the particular skills, aptitude and competence of the person chosen. Equally important will be the introduction of some form of updating scrutiny for people in office. The scrutiny should not be too intrusive, but just because people are virgins when they are offered their appointments, it does not mean they will remain so.
The system will encourage government to be more careful when proposing names whether they be ambassadors, officers and chairmen. It will also spare government the embarrassment of certain choices since a grilling session may separate the wheat from the chaff. Very often chairpersons of particular authorities run companies with bigger budgets than the departments of elected ministers.
Yet they are not subject to a fraction of the amount of accountability and scrutiny of a minister.
The minister rightfully carries all the political responsibility yet the chairmen or directors appear to operate outside public scrutiny cushioned by ministers who take all the flak.
Just as ministers annually declare their assets the same should apply to chairpersons and directors.
Just as ministers carry political responsibility and are accountable to parliament the chairman and the directors should, when being appointed be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Needless to say many a critic will say this is simply an American import with its checks and balances system. Others may opine that a rigid system will result in very few persons being willing to undergo a grilling in Parliament and as a result it will be difficult to find willing people to serve. These opinions need not detract government from considering upgrading the method used when appointing directors.
Putting such a system in place gives recognition to the need to do politics differently in our country. It is a further building block in our European edifice. It is in the final analysis in the interests of the government of the day as it may spare it the embarrassment of further ‘encouraged’ resignations.
|
