BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – IT is a requirement, the world over, that some categories of employees will submit their resignation whenever a new government comes into office. Also, it is common knowledge that the Political Leader will ensure that changes are made to his security detail.
Following an election, the transition process takes days, sometimes weeks and even months, depending on the size of the country’s Cabinet.
At this time in the political history of St. Kitts and Nevis, the new Government, the alliance Team Unity, is going through that process and many of us are unaware of its intricate character, which often gives rise to suspicion and victimisation.
In occupying the various offices, including that of the country’s Political Leader, the Ministers of Government are not obliged to retain the service of their predecessors’ Personal Assistants, but the onus lies with them.
Most often, however, Personal Assistants are loyal to their bosses and it would be foolhardy for the successors to retain their service, especially in the political arena, even though they are knowledgeable, efficient and effective in the execution of their duties.
This however does not mean that those Personal Assistants should be fired. They are members of the Public Service and would be reposition, unless they adamant in their stance of not working for the new Administration.
In the Caribbean region and other countries whose police force comprises a Special Branch, the President or Prime Minister (as is the case in St. Kitts and Nevis) normally changes the head of that department and he or she normally makes changes to the security detail, which is also affiliated to the Special Branch. He or she may also require a new chauffeur.
It is imperative for all government-appointed employees such as Ambassadors and Board Members to tender their resignation when a new government takes office. Those, who are overseas-based, usually return, would meet with the new government and some of them might be successful in retaining their appointments. And the same might be applied to the Board Members.
Speaking with this journalist, former Government Minister Dwyer Astaphan is of the view that all members on the Board of the National Bank should tender their resignation.
He said the Government owns 51 percent of the shares at the National Bank and that all members on the Board are Government representatives.
“The Government is the majority shareholder and it is having the majority of members on the Board, but I would also like to see the private shareholders of the Bank having some representation on the Board. That, to me, would be a wonderful step in the democratisation of the country. And that is something that can come very soon! I thing a special meeting of the shareholders could facilitate that!
“The elegant thing for the Members of the Board of the National Bank would be to resign, because they all got there because of the Government,” he opined.
Astaphan is also of the view that Counsellors of the Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation (SIDF) too should resign, adding that that is the convention.
“The National Bank owns 100 percent of the National Trust and the National Trust is the founder of the SIDF. All of the Counsellors of the SIDF should resign and allow the founder, the National Trust, being 100 percent owned by the Bank which is itself 51 percent owned by the Government, to stand down and allow for the facilitation of a new Board of Counsellors, including any of the present actors.”
To lend credence to his opinion, the former Government insider said: “If you are in position at the behest of somebody and that person is no longer there, you have the professional and ethical obligation to resign. And if you are replaced, that is not victimisation.”
He postulated that if the Members of the Government-appointed Boards and other Government appointee have not yet submitted their resignation, it could be viewed as an act to frustrate the execution of the mandate given to the new Administration by the people who elected them.
Astaphan also spoke to the alleged issue of Personal Assistants of former Ministers of Government being denied access to their office.
“Each Minister has a Personal Assistant. I don’t see anything wrong with them being in the office there. If they have any personal items there that they want to get a hold of, but seeing you are having a transition, and you are talking about transition to a new Government after 20 years and relationships had become embedded, it is important that whatever personal stuff they wish to identify and remove must be done under the supervision of people on behalf of the present Administration.
“It is for the Minister to decide if he or she should retain the service of his predecessor’s personal Assistant; and he does not want her that is not victimisation. He would want somebody with whom he is most comfortable, because a personal assistant occupies a very sensitive position in the hierarchy of the ministry.”
He, too, believes that persons of such appointments should be reposition, but there should be reservations if some serious misconduct issue occurs.
“But in the ordinary course of event, barring any criminal or serious disciplinary matters, the persons can be repositioned in the Public Service. There ought to be no desire to take food off somebody’s table! But, at the same time, people have to conduct themselves in a professional and respectful manner, and particularly respectful of the fact that the electorate has spoken, and that there is a new administration in place and they must work with the administration for them to discharge the obligations which it undertook to discharge in its contract with the people.”
Astaphan brought into the spotlight the fact that some supporters of a government could also be the perpetrators of existing and long-lasting problems.
“It is not only persons in the Public Service who oppose a government to frustrate it in the execution of its obligations. Very often it is the people who are in support of the government that cause far more damage by their conduct and attitude.”
