Given that Prime Minister Andrew Holness has had his Cabinet installed, the ministers and the civil servants who report to them have turned their attention to the process of managing their portfolios. One critical aspect has to do with the establishment of boards for the various public bodies.

Corporate governance in Jamaican public bodies has benefited from the general process of public sector modernisation. The legislative and policy frameworks have seen improvements. The process has also benefited from a national consensus involving government (political administration), private sector, trade unions, and civil society as it relates to the appointment of boards.

As the prime minister and the Cabinet prepare to appoint boards of the public bodies I trust that they will adhere to the fundamental principles of effective corporate governance enshrined in the Government of Jamaica document entitled Corporate Governance Framework for Public Bodies in Jamaica (CGF). This is particularly important for two reasons:

1. The prime minister’s stress on accountability and that corruption will not be tolerated in his administration.

2. The roles that boards of public bodies play in the execution of a government’s mission and vision and the associated strategies, goals and objectives.

The CGF is a commendable attempt to guide practice. It has the benefit of having been piloted and approved by cabinets of the Jamaica Labour Party (2011) and the People’s National Party (Revision, 2012). It guides boards and the public bodies they oversee in facilitating compliance with the social, economic and regulatory imperatives of Jamaica, explaining the framework within which they operate.

Critically, this has been informed by best practices as well as by lessons learnt over the years. While each public body reports to the permanent secretary, as the accounting officer, and to the line minister who is responsible from a policy perspective, the monitoring process is linked to that within the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service.

In my opinion, the actions by the then board of the National Housing Trust in the purchase of Outameni appear to have breached critical principles of effective corporate governance. Without rehashing the episode, the purchase led to outcry from many sectors, resignations by board members, the reconstitution of the board, and significant public debate on corporate governance issues and principles. While I cannot posit that there was a direct link, it is a fact that the chairman of the board was replaced a few months after the public discourse and quarrel. It is important that we learn from this example.

Prime Minister Andrew Holness’s emphases on setting and holding his ministers to performance targets, accountability in government, careful stewardship of public resources, and zero toleration of corruption are to be supported. As such, the composition and leadership of boards of public bodies, and their adherence to the principles of the CGF, will greatly assist in the achievement of the stated objectives. There are no margins for error. The prime minister and his Cabinet must perform exceptionally well in this task.

In the introduction to the CGF we are told that its purpose is threefold. First, “…to promote effective systems of control and accountability…” Second, to promote “…responsible attitude on the part of those handling government resources”. Third, “…to strengthen the governance accountability systems of public bodies, in order to facilitate greater probity, transparency, and efficiency in the functions of government”.

Chairpersons and members who are competent, professionally relevant, and characterised by integrity must be appointed to lead in the achievement and maintenance of these elements. They, in turn, must appreciate that they must be committed to these principles. While there will be the inevitable appointment associated with the winning party — and this is okay — the people who are eventually approved have to understand that their appointment is not for social prestige.

The boards, once composed, approved and having received their mandates should be held to account in the same way that the prime minister is proposing that he and the Cabinet will be. Each board should be asked to develop key performance indicators (KPIs) that are related to those set for the ministry within which it is assigned. These KPIs will be informed by the CGF’s threefold purpose statement, but critically, are related to their performance. It makes no sense that boards evaluate their CEOs and organisations and do not institute processes to evaluate their own performance.

Boards must adhere to the overall legal and regulatory framework. Duh!…you might say, but Jamaica’s experience means that we need to repeat the obvious — and often! Apart from their enabling legislation (where they exist) boards must pay attention to the Public Bodies Management and Accountability Act and relevant laws and regulations. Boards must be current with the International Monetary Fund agreement. They have to deal effectively and efficiently with matters of fiscal responsibility framework, transparency, communication, and use of resources.

If we are to be able to realistically measure their performance it seems as though Prime Minister Holness should mandate these public bodies to publish their corporate plans and KPIs within a reasonable time frame; similar to proposals to mandate the Office of the Prime Minister to publish integrity reports. This is not about cosmetic actions, but real action designed to hold all within the corporate governance universe in Jamaica accountable for their leadership.

I would propose that boards are trained in the CGF and the associated requirements and expectations. Additionally, the Management Institute of National Development (MIND) has an excellent course in corporate governance.

The appointment of chairpersons is a major issue. Principle 3 of the CGF details the role of the chairperson. It notes that the position of the chair is to be separate from that of the CEO of the organisation. This is a sound principle and must be done not only in word, but in deed as well.

It is quite easy for strong personalities who serve as chairpersons to override the CEOs and dominate not only the board but also the organisation and its executive operations. It might be useful to consider mandating all public bodies to have CEOs who are members of their boards, as opposed to appointment of general managers with limited presence on the board. This can allow too much space to domineering chairpersons. Certainly, I appreciate that this alone will not prevent narcissistic behaviour by some chairpersons, but it is important to state the principle and develop assessment rubrics that capture such deviations. Further, as the CGF posits, chairpersons should preferably be appointed from an industry that is not directly related to the work of the public body. This is important given the need to avoid a conflict of interest.

The chairperson has the responsibility to ensure that boards are oriented, sensitised, trained, and perform optimally in their assignment. Prime Minister Holness might lead in ensuring that ministers report to him on the progress of the development of boards and the process of evaluating their own performance, and the extent to which these outcomes guide the their continuation or are replaced.

Equality

In the appointment of boards I wish to address one other issue: gender equality. In 2016 there is no reason why government should not and cannot be held directly accountable to honour national commitments to equality in gender representation. When this is raised we hear hackneyed expressions about the need for competence and quality people. No reasonable person would dispute this; however, the same standards apply to men as women in this regard. We need to respect the 30 per cent minimum representation, for either gender, when selections and appointments are being made. By the way, does this national commitment to 30 per cent also apply to chairpersons? Gender equality is not the only issue in the matter of diversity. We also have to acknowledge the youth, the disabled, et al. A defined overall code of ethics should assist in monitoring board actions.

Communication

A lot has been said about communication in the aftermath of the February 25 General Election. Despite experience and the tools available to leaders and managers, there is still room for significant improvement in our practice. The prime minister, his ministers, and boards of public bodies should seek to develop communications strategies in which they relate regularly, in understandable language, and with integrity to their communities of interest.

Boards should seek to establish working mechanisms for feedback and, when this arises, no matter how sharp, they remain open to hear and respond respectfully, demonstrating an ability to orient their organisations with reference to the dialogue. This will be one vital way in which they hold themselves accountable, and whereby we can see whether or not they are serving us and achieving the overall purpose of the CGF. There is significant goodwill in this country and all who lead can hear the messages that emerge if there is a commitment to listen with diligence.

We are at a critical juncture in our nation’s history. The prime minister has spoken admirably in committing himself and his Government to being accountable and transparent. I think that we owe it to our nation to request that he guides his ministers (and himself) to appoint boards to satisfy the standards of the CGF. In so doing, I strongly believe that we will perform better in social and economic indices.

Dameon A Black is an educator and public affairs commentator. Send responses to the Observer orblackad48@gmail.com.