A proposed reform of the human resource-management system of the Cayman Islands Government would dramatically change certain aspects of civil service.
The first part of the reform began when the Government’s General Orders were replaced with revised ones on 11 May, 2005.
Colin Ross, Deputy Head of Civil Service, outlined the initiative during the CARTAC workshop held in late May.
Aspects of the proposed reform, which are now part of a draft law, include civil servant performance assessments, performance incentives and a decentralisation of management authority concerning appointment, dismissal and other personnel functions.
Mr. Ross said the revised General Orders move away from the major premise of the old ones, which told civil service managers what they could not do.
‘The premise (in the new General Orders) in not ‘no’,’ Mr. Ross said. ‘It’s ‘yes’, but you have to follow procedure.’
The proposed personnel reform would be a natural extension of the financial management reform already embraced by the Cayman Islands Government.
‘Personnel reform is the twin to financial reform,’ Mr. Ross said. ‘It is essential if you want to encourage good public sector performance.’
Mr. Ross said the current system strangles efficiency and effectiveness.
‘We are getting new young people into our system and we’re strangling them with an archaic system,’ he said. ‘We must put that system away and be done with it.’
A key element of personnel reform is decentralising personnel management authority to management.
‘We need to let the managers manage,’ he told the workshop group. ‘For too long, managers have had their hands tied by a centralised system.’
Mr. Ross related a story from when he was a school principal here in Cayman in the 80s to highlight part of the problem of centralised civil service systems.
‘I couldn’t order pens or a ream of paper,’ he said. ‘If we needed those things, I had to go to the Department of Education and deal with a clerical person who had the authority to do what I couldn’t do as a principal.’
Mr. Ross said one of the most important ways of decentralising management authority has to do with staffing.
‘We hold managers accountable for outputs, but we don’t give them any control over their inputs,’ he said. ‘Staff is a ministry’s major input.’
Currently, the independent body known as the Public Service Commission is responsible for the appointing and dismissing of civil servants.
The PSC also has control over wages, salaries and allowances, and there is little or no performance focus, Mr. Ross said.
‘The benefit of central control is supposed to be equity and the avoidance of nepotism and favouritism,’ Mr. Ross said. ‘The cost is lower morale and sluggish performance.
‘Increments and promotions are based on longevity. There is little opportunity to reward good performances.’
Mr. Ross called the current application process bureaucratic, slow and unresponsive.
‘Good people won’t apply, or if they do, they won’t wait,’ he said. ‘You find all the good go-getters have already gone and got.’
Another problem with the current hiring system is it does not allow government to take into consideration local and international market forces, especially with regard to remuneration in specialist fields, Mr. Ross said.
‘All of this left managers very frustrated… and led to a management vacuum because they never learned to manage because they didn’t have to.’
Mr. Ross said the proposed new system is fair and responsive and that it empowers and supports managers.
Under the new system, managers would have the authority to appoint, promote, and transfer staff. Managers could also agree on remuneration levels and terms and conditions of employment.
The PSC would be phased out under the new system, and then recreated as the Civil Service Appeals Committee.
That committee would serve as one of several safeguards in the new system.
‘We didn’t want to completely throw out General Orders and just do what we like,’ Mr. Ross said. ‘We wanted some rules and parameters in place.’
Standard rules and processes will still govern the appointment process. There will be broad remuneration guidelines and minimum terms and conditions.
Other safeguards on the proposed new system will be oversight by the Head of the Civil Service, an appeal process and compliance audits.
To encourage better performance from civil servants, the proposed new personnel system would employ performance assessments using a five-point system.
Mr. Ross said an employee that got a rating of five in their assessment would receive their base salary plus 10 per cent as a bonus the following year.
An employee who received a rating of four would earn their base salary plus five per cent the following year.
A rating of three means the employee just did their job to the minimum requirements and he or she would just receive their base salary the following year.
Those civil servants who received a sub-par rating of two would just receive their base salary the following year and be put on notice that if their next annual rating was a one or two, they would only receive 95 per cent of their base salary the year after that.
Civil servants receiving a performance rating of one would earn their base salary the following year, but be warned that if their next rating were also a one, they would only receive 90 per cent of their base salary the year after that.
‘This system introduces the concept not only of positive reward for good performances, but negative consequences for poor performances,’ Mr. Ross said.
Other incentives are also allowed under the proposed new system, which are not necessarily remuneration based.
Since the financial management reform puts an emphasis on outputs, it is important the personnel management reform does to, Mr. Ross said.
‘Reform is absolutely vital and was made more vital by the financial management reform,’ he said.
Mr. Ross said that as performance changes, so will the efficiency of government, but that the transition would probably take five to ten years to complete.
‘You don’t change a culture overnight,’ he said.
There will be some resistance to the change, Mr. Ross acknowledged.
‘It’s always easier to do nothing than it is to change things,’ he said. ‘I understand the hesitancy.’
Related Videos
