The Tribune

FINANCIAL FOCUS: By LARRY GIBSON

On November 6, 2012, US citizens will go to the polls to elect a new president who will govern for a four-year term beginning on January 20, 2013. The choice will be between the Democratic incumbent, President Barack Obama, and the Republican challengerm Mitt Romney. At the time of writing, President Obama seems to have a slight lead in the many polls that are seemingly being taken and/or updated daily.

Here at home we had general elections on May 7, which resulted in the election of a new PLP administration. As the new government settles in, we are hearing loud cries of political victimisation as employment contracts are being paid out. Others are not being renewed, and there are cases of outright termination. Needless to say, the airwaves are rife with talk shows where persons are either ‘crying foul’ because they have been displaced, while others argue that the Government is not moving fast enough to put ‘their own people’ in place.

Spoils System

There is a well-repeated adage: “To the victor go the spoils” which, according to several sources, has its genesis in the political arena. The spoils system refers to the practice of giving appointments, contracts and ‘perks’ to loyal party supporters. In our system of politics, the opposition always publicly declare their absolute abhorrence at such practices but, once in power, turn a convenient ‘blind eye’ and reward their faithful with the spoils of victory. So, in all honesty, no one political party is really any better than the next.

Therefore, until we engage in bipartisan political reform, which is a long-shot at best, we are stuck with a practice that is detrimental to nation building and long-term development…but is extremely useful to the political regime in power. Therefore, the practice persists, as there is no political will to change anything. While this indeed is very sad, this is the reality for the foreseeable future.

Hypocrisy

Going back to the issue of victimisation, there are persons who accepted appointments knowing full well that the former incumbent was terminated only because ‘they were members of the losing side’. But, when the tables turn and your team is out, and you are terminated, it now becomes victimisation. What am I missing here? Surely there must be a more rational approach to dealing with this issue. Our neighbours to the north have found a sane and rational way of dealing with this situation.

US Approach

I was watching one of the US news shows last week when it was mentioned that with the change of administration, there are some 4,000 to 6,000 new political appointees who move to Washington. These appointees are classified as ‘Schedule C Federal Employees’.

At the beginning of a new administration, the incoming President makes personnel changes, including selecting new Cabinet secretaries and agency heads. These new appointees may appoint a number of officials on the basis of their support for the President’s goals and policies. These are the officials who are responsible for formulating, advocating and directing administration policies and programmes, or are those who serve such officials in a close and confidential relationship.

Most executive branch positions are in the ‘competitive service’, or in a separate but similar competitive merit system. Government-wide, there are relatively few positions whose incumbents are subject to change during periods of transition. Employees in positions that traditionally change when US administrations change are not part of the competitive civil service. Rather, they are exempted from competitive civil service requirements and protections by law, Executive Order or regulation. However, as a check and balance, many of the highest level appointments are subject to Senate approval, which serves as a safeguard to obvious abuse.

Typically, these positions fall into four categories and normally include Cabinet Officers and heads of other executive branch agencies; Under Secretaries; Assistant Secretaries; Directors of Bureaus and Services; and Chairpersons and Members of Boards, Commissions, and Committees. Persons holding these positions know that they are political appointees and they submit their resignation, beginning a day after the election, unless they are specifically asked to stay on. There is no cry of political victimisation and no hypocrisy.

Transparency

Let us be honest with ourselves and formalise which positions are reserved for political appointees and publish them. When governments change, pack your bundle and go gracefully.

Until next week…

NB: Larry R. Gibson, a Chartered Financial Analyst, is vice-president - pensions, Colonial Pensions Services (Bahamas), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Colonial Group International, which owns Atlantic Medical Insurance and is a major shareholder of Security & General Insurance Company in the Bahamas.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Colonial Group International or any of its subsidiary and/or affiliated companies. Please direct any questions or comments to Larry.Gibson@atlantichouse.com.bs