By Simon Cawdery
At a speech to the Cayman Islands Chamber of Commerce last October, Premier André Ebanks made the express point that he wanted to deliver “transparent governance”. It’s a sentiment to be applauded, without doubt, but desires and implementation are very different beasts.
The question I pose is: How will this be actioned? In the spirit of never asking a question without suggesting options, I want therefore to reflect on this and put forward practical ways that the intent and sentiment can translate into actionable policy.
This article will not comment on the myriad news reports about the behaviour, activities and compensation in respect of some statutory and independent boards in the Cayman Islands. Rather, I want to make constructive suggestions that could apply to every board, statutory authority and committee, as well as to the process for appointments, so that transparency can truly be delivered. Transparency, after all, is a disinfectant to nepotism, favouritism and partisanship (to use a US expression). If the goal of the new government is truly that of transparency and good governance, then here are some ideas to put that into practice.
Actions, not just words
Cayman has a variety of boards, ranging from those for planning, to work permits, to healthcare and so on. Each do valuable work, and there are, without doubt, many people on those boards who put in considerable hours specifically to contribute to improving Cayman, and they are to be commended for their contribution.
Cayman nevertheless does have an awful lot of committees and boards. Are they all needed? Could some be consolidated? Are they all delivering and functioning as intended? Is Cayman getting real value for money from each board and each board member? When was the last time this question was seriously asked and investigated?
Just because something has existed for decades does not mean the status quo remains the best way of operating. We shouldn’t be scared to make changes to structures where doing so would improve efficiency, cut costs or deliver better outcomes – or, in many cases, all three.
Transparency in process
What is the process for selection and appointment to a board? As far as I can tell, the best adjectives to describe it are ‘opaque’, ‘complicated’ and ‘murky’.
Let’s frame the conversation a different way: If you wanted to apply to be on a committee or a board, do you know how to? I asked ChatGPT how I would go about applying for a position on a random selection of Cayman Islands boards. Its answer in the case of the Work Permit Board: “I couldn’t find publicly available, detailed guidance on how to apply to be a member of the Work Permit Board (Cayman Islands).”
I am not for one moment suggesting that ChatGPT has all the answers, or even always gets things right, but it was illuminating that its first observation was there was no ‘publicly available detailed guidance…’.
The premise of my proposal is a simple one, and it is that any government should want the widest possible pool of candidates from whom to choose, so that it can select the best persons.
The challenge as I see it is that if people don’t know how to ‘put their hand up’, or only those with ‘close connections to the politicians’ get selected, then the pool is limited and the very real risk is that sub-par selections can be made.
Government should therefore introduce a public transparency initiative that would list out all board positions, the skillsets being sought, the responsibilities, compensation and goals of the board. Then it should invite applicants to express interest in applying. Let me state very clearly here that this process needs to be as unbureaucratic as possible (admittedly somewhat at odds with how governments and administrations tend to operate around the world, but we don’t need to copy the worst traits of others).
We want to encourage people to apply, not drown them in 40 pages of forms. Obviously, we need to be able to identify appropriate skills and experiences, but this should easily be achievable in a short application-form approach.
Identifying strong candidates
It’s not enough to just encourage people to apply. The selection process can also be enhanced.
Why can’t there be a committee of independent apolitical individuals who are appointed to vet applications as suitable. This body could be from a cross selection of society and from both the private and public sectors.
They would then have the right to screen out those who don’t meet the necessary criteria. Those left would then be placed in front of government for them to decide upon.
Crucially, the ultimate decision on appointment would rest where it should rest – with the properly elected people’s representatives.
But the process by which those people are selected would be subject to much greater rigour, much greater standardisation and much greater transparency, which would wholly fulfil one of the key tenets of the government’s publicly stated objectives.
Transparency in selection
There should then be transparency of outcome.
Government should list how many people applied (we don’t need to name those who apply but are unsuccessful, as that may discourage applications) and be clear whether there are any connections between the selected individuals and themselves or their political party.
Is a person selected a member of the government’s party? Did the person selected campaign for a candidate? These are not, on their own, bad things, but transparency will help identify whether there are any risks of conflicts, and encourage selections to be based on merit not connections.
Transparency would also have the benefit of causing embarrassment to those whose appointment owes to favours rather than ability.
One potential complaint of this system might be: “That person is obviously perfect for this role and they are too senior to bother with an application form.”
Really? May I humbly suggest: country first, ego second. No matter who you are, if you can’t spare the time to spend two hours on an application, why should we, the people of Cayman, trust that you will give the necessary attention and dedication to the committee you somehow consider rightfully yours?
These appointments should be about contributing to Cayman, not self-enrichment or seeking glory. Each committee involves hard and dedicated work. How committed is that person to the hard yards if they can’t be bothered to fill in a short form explaining their skills and interest?
Transparency of process and transparency of selection are not just a mantra, but actually have the potential to deliver improvements.
They could very well be some exceedingly competent individuals willing to serve on committees and help bring positive changes to Cayman. Yet, we have no idea who they are.
Instead, Cayman risks inheriting some of the worst traits of the British appointment and honours system, whereby people get positions because of loyalty and fealty rather than a dedication to helping the country.
Government has talked the talk. Now, may I suggest, it’s time to walk the walk.
Simon Cawdery, CFA, is an investment manager and governance professional who lives and works in the Cayman Islands. He writes regularly for the Compass.
Related Videos
