WHEN I was a seminary student preparing for ordination as a priest, I was under the supervision of the late Rt Rev Sehon Goodridge. From time to time the denominational students under his care would run afoul of his instructions and what he articulated to be conduct befitting aspirants for ordination. On many of those occasions he would remind us that we were being maintained in college by “Sister Mary’s one cent”. In other words, it was the hard labour and sacrifice of the simple and humble people which made it possible for us to have such an opportunity and as such we were to act as responsible students.

I have never forgotten this seemingly harsh but relevant instruction and have accordingly structured by life in such a way that, to the best of my intention, I am accountable, first and foremost, not to the maintenance of the status quo, but to the ordinary folk who make up the majority of the membership of the Church and the society. My expectation of the Church and my handling of the resources placed in my hands must reflect this basic principle, and whatever luxuries or excesses I desire in life must come from my own resources.

In recent weeks there has been much debate about the Finsac Commission, and much of the reporting has reflected partisan political posturing and the emotionally charged responses of those who see themselves as having been victimised, demoralised, and sold out by the government which instituted Finsac. Accordingly, any comment by citizens of this country is categorised by many persons into one of these hardline positions. Those of us who are not prepared to hand over our country to people who are guided only by these narrow interests must be prepared to make our contributions in order to stay focused on the issues and to bring a sense of balance to the life of our society.

As one who has been schooled in the notion that “Sister Mary’s one cent” is the source of funding for our voluntary and public institutions, I must state that I find the attempt to dismiss the allegations of excesses in the price tag of the Finsac Commission untenable, if not repugnant. We live in a society in which the low wages of the masses are not state secrets, neither are the wages paid to highly qualified and competent persons in the public service. While there have been hair-splitting exercises geared at pointing out that there is a difference between the budgeted figures and what may be the actual payout at the end of the life of the Commission, the point remains that we are looking at excesses in these provisions.

We are accustomed to the existence of “pork barrel” politics in this country, which has allowed persons and institutions to charge excessive rates and deliberately create cost overruns, once one is dealing with the public purse administered by the Government. It is for this reason that Mr Greg Christie and his office will never be short of work, notwithstanding the Procurement Procedures and Guidelines which have been put in place. But if we look around us we will see the growing evidence that once payment for a service comes from the public purse it represents some kind of windfall for persons — whether it is bushing the sidewalk, filling a pot hole, removing debris after a hurricane, or just being a contractor involved in the removal of solid waste.

I am not about to lay blame on the people who have been named by the Government to be a part of the Commission for the rates they are being paid, but I will concede that a comment from Mr Charles Ross suggesting that the amount being paid is an insignificant percentage of the national budget is unfortunate. The Government must be held responsible for the amounts being paid to the members of this Commission. And although persons from the private sector are saying that this is “chicken feed”, we must ask how many of the companies which they own or operate would pay any semblance of these figures for professional services to their institution. The professionals and highly trained persons who work in the major industries and institutions know that they do not see this kind of compensation package, neither will “Auntie Mary” and her descendants. Nevertheless, the little GCT that she struggles to pay must fund these extravagant government-approved compensation packages.

If a company should opt to make a payment of this nature, then it would be to implement some major changes in the institution to make it more competitive or viable. The problem with commissions of enquiry in the history of Jamaica is that they often lead to no significant action being taken. Our most recent experience is that of the Armadale Commission. The call for a commission of enquiry came as a result of public revulsion and outcry against the tragedy that befell those girls in state custody. Many persons anticipated hearing of heads rolling and major changes in the provision and management of these institutions, but to date nothing earth-shaking has happened and we are back to business as usual. The commissions of greatest concern, in terms of their lack of usefulness, are those set up by an incumbent government to investigate the policies or activities of their predecessors. These commissions begin with a lot of trumpeting about the dark secrets to be revealed, and are usually met with a lot of public support as the new government rides on the tide of euphoria. There is usually a promise that the incumbent government will use the opportunity to punish offenders and to put in place legislation and policies that will serve to rectify revealed failures. The present government, in setting up the Finsac Commission, is concerned primarily with finding out what went wrong to ensure that we never make the same mistake again. This approach has its public appeal but disguises the reality.

I have no doubt that we will get relevant information out of this Commission, even though there will perhaps be a debate about the level of political bias and the way vested interests will colour the way the information is revealed. The real point of discontinuity will be in terms of getting the Government to take whatever legislative and legal steps are necessary to see that this and future governments do not repeat financial and other decisions which the Commission may find to have been reckless or irresponsible. The fact is that we as citizens may clamour as loudly as we want about what the Government needs to do, but if they perceive that a particular course of action ties the hands of government in a way that is not in the interest of party politics, and to a lesser extent governance, then they will not follow through on such steps. If you are in doubt about this, just reflect for a while on why the Government has had to implement the current Debt Exchange Programme. It is the making of successive governments, notwithstanding the warnings and demands from various sources that there be a curtailment of public borrowing and spending.

I was reminded of a scenario that has played out repeatedly on the radio talk shows. It is the case of the caller who comes on the air and begins to present a concern or complaint to the host in an emotionally charged voice. After hearing the nature of the concern, the host attempts to structure the caller toward a course of action that would seek to resolve their concern. The caller constantly brushes aside the creative strategies being advanced by the host. In exasperation the host asks the question, “What do you want me to do for you, as the suggestions I am making do not seem of much help to you?” The response is then forthcoming from the caller, “I just want the whole of Jamaica to know what I am talking about.”

Whatever the information gleaned from the Finsac Commission, it will be of little benefit to this country if all it does is to tell the story and share heart-rending information. It would have been an exercise in futility and a vulgar waste of “Auntie Mary’s” hard-earned one cent, which is supposed to help us ride through this time of financial crisis, the Debt Exchange Programme and the return to the International Monetary Fund.

Howard Gregory is the Suffragan Bishop of Montego Bay.