The release of the meeting minutes was not solicited by any news agency, but rather was done proactively by the deputy governor’s office.
According to the minutes, it was agreed Monday that government would continue the practice of sending the details of these chief officers’ meetings to all civil servants each time one was held.
During an interview with the Caymanian Compass last month, Mr. Manderson noted that government communication – particularly between its employees and managers – had been lacking and that he intended to proactively disseminate more information to both civil servants and the wider public.
“Let us say, for example, we decide that we are going to have a…fundamental change, a new policy that’s going to be done,” Mr. Manderson said during the January interview. “When do we actually announce that policy? Do we announce it when we’ve decided we’re going to do it, or we announce it after it’s done?
“There’s nothing wrong with saying the government, in 2013, intends to do something…and give the public a lot of opportunity to comment on it, to understand it. I’m not sure we do enough of that.”
Putting out the good news is just one part of the equation. Manderson says his office will also be more responsive when government gets into a tight spot. If the news is bad, he says it still needs to come out.
“No one expects use to be absolutely perfect,” he said.
Some other details of the chief officers meeting included:
*A new awards scheme for civil servants: This proposal could potentially replace the current FACE awards given each year to outstanding Cayman Islands civil servants; it is currently in discussion.
*A more in-depth review of various reports that had been done including the National Assessment of Living Conditions, the National Investment Council Report, and the Keith Luck report [on the government’s financial management system], with an eye toward implementing the Bill of Rights later this year.
*Annual leave for civil servants will be moved from the calendar year to the fiscal year, which means it would reset in July and not in January.
*The Portfolio of the Civil Service would begin work on a policy against sexual harassment in the workplace, in light of the approval and enactment of the Gender Equality Law.
Related Videos
Good start Mr. Manderson I like your tact..
There is nothing to hide when you are about the people’s business, we the shareholders need to know too.
Top Secret, Secret, confidential, Need to Know, and unclassified all have their uses, but If all information was placed in the secret category, your mastermind group would have no information to work with..
I am sure the Editor will continue to dig out your filing category to qualify its filing status and push for declassifications..
Caymanian-on-guard – make your mind up.
You just posted – if the UK says we have nothing to gain by releasing more information, I will go with their call, especially if they mention national security be it ours or theirs.
My FOI request has nothing to do with national security, this is just a false claim of national security interests to obstruct access to documentation that should be in the public domain already.
So which is it you want? Do we all continue to push for things to be de-classified or are you happy to let the UK dictate what is made public and what isn’t?
Incidentally, right now the bill for investigations underway into Tempura is being picked up by the UK taxpayer and I want to try to keep it that way.
Mr. Evans; You seem more knowledgeable of that investigations than I am.
I personally draw the line as to comments and or disagreement when those in the position to determine national interest state; Information in the interest of national security. But’ that is just me.. I am right there on the line, but would never cross that..
Matter of fact I will protect that line.
caymanian-on-guard
Please do not interpret my comments as intervening in any discourse between yourself and Mr. Evans…my comments stem purely from your last statements and raises these questions.
If I am to take your comments at face value, are you then saying that you believe and defend every statement and action made by those in authority, without question ?
And that you would protect any and all actions by the authorities, without any discretion on your own part ?
And that you surrender your own intelligence and discretion to the authorities to solely decide what is or is not, in national interests ?
If you are…and I’m passing no judgement here…I’m sayin IF you are, then I would question your validity of living in our Western-style democratic system.
Your mentality would better suit countries like North Korea or Iran, where intelligent citizens are FORCED to surrender all discretionary powers to the authority of the state.
That mentality being enforced in the Cayman Islands for many years is what is causing many problems now, seeing that the Cayman Islands is now being ushered into the fully democratic world, where authority is expected to be questioned and challenged when intelligence and morality dictates that it should.
If the authorities were 100% right 100% of the time, you would sadly be without courts, judges and jurors.
I’m not sure that this is a system in which you would be happy having to live in.
Firery: First of all there is no discourse between me any anyone that I know of. I just stated an opinion and replied to a question asked.
As for Iran and North Korea; I thought better of you than to associate the decisions of the United-Kingdom and Cayman,s to the likes of those two leaders, for it is our/my leaders point to National Security that I commit my defence.
Funny though that you would mention Korea especially to someone who’s office was a foxhole dug deep in the mud of the DMZ. let me tell you that my fire limit stakes were plotted with over-lapping fire pointing North not south, and it was not in the interest of the North national security.
No! The leaders who’s judgement I would defend is nothing like the leaders of those countries you mentioned.
To make my statement clear: Anything our government deem to be in the interest of National Security I will defend, until that ruling is over-ridden by a high court of the land.