Did gov’t misunderstand ROI advice for public servants?

Opposition lawmakers have argued that the government misunderstood advice given in the Commission of Inquiry (COI) report concerning public servants and amendments to the Register of Interests (ROI) law.

The Register of Interests is a record of the financial interests of legislators. Its purpose is to give them the mechanism to publicly declare any private interests which conflict with or may appear to conflict with their public duties. 

However, the Commission of Inquiry revealed that lawmakers were mostly delinquent in declaring their interests. 

Recommendation B4 in the COI report stated, “…once the registration of interests system for Members of the House of Assembly has been established, evaluated and its extension costed, then consideration should be given to its extension to other public officials on an incremental basis.” 

The report also suggested that the first set of public officers to be covered could include Permanent Secretaries, the Financial Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary while the second set could include members of statutory boards; and so on, until all public officers intended are covered.

Opposition lawmakers criticised the government for moving full speed ahead to include senior public servants in the amended law without following the recommendation and without consultations with affected public servants.

Territorial At-Large Representative Stacy ‘Buddha’ Mather said he requested evidence from the government that the new system was evaluated but never got any information.

In the meantime, Sixth District Representative Myron Walwyn argued that it was clear that the government was only interested in moving swiftly along with a box-checking exercise to meet deadlines for COI reform implementation. 

He accused the government of failing in its duties and of being unfit for office. “The excuse provided in the House of Assembly (HOA), that the bill is a Governor’s bill is a failed attempt to cover up what could only be described as sheer incompetence,” stated Walwyn.

Among other things, Walwyn said the proposed amendment does not establish a structure for compliance, is without sanctions, and lacks clarity about who is covered.

He said any attempt to make substantial changes to the bill during the committee stage of HOA proceedings where it currently sits would be contrary to well-established legislative procedures.