The critical, if not fundamental questions are; “…Could the “PSC” on its own volition decide who may be; …promoted; …transferred; …disciplined; …dismissed; … allowed; …ordered to, or prevented from resigning or; …which personnel may or may not be “…granted rest day; …liberty; … vacation, duty or special leave?
The simple answer is “…No.” The “PSC” is neither empowered by the Constitution, the Police Act nor any other statutory provisions to function administratively in such capacity. Hence, it has no legitimate status or power to “…grant or direct the Commissioner of Police to grant or refuse leave or application or request for “…voluntary retirement,” nor to remove from office, singularly and/or on its own volition, personnel not in its non-existent employ.
That written, there appears to be an anomalous situation in regard to this administrative function. Its primary functions, are described in “Section 105” of the Constitution Order 1981, “…promotion/transfer/discipline.” It is sometimes fool-hardy to attempt to repair what had not malfunctioned. However, it ought to be known that a machine is being operated on fabricated or non-genuine parts so that when it malfunctioned, the problem may be easily diagnosed and repaired.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS
In the case of “…recommendations for appointment” to fill consequential vacancies, below the rank of Assistant Superintendent, the Commissioner is required to dispatch through the Permanent Secretary in the relevant Ministry to the “PSC” such recommendations. In cases where there is a need to fill senior ranks as reportedly being pursued by Trinidad and Tobago or occupied in other jurisdictions, the “PSC” shall consult the Prime Minister before such appointments are made.
Where there are preferences for indigenous candidates, the Commissioner has responsibility for making recommendations on behalf of personnel subordinate to him for submission to the “PSC.” When there are external preferences, then such recommendations may be made by the Executive through “…policy-decisions and/or with parliamentary authority.”
Such approaches to filling these ranks are sometimes fraught with predictable or unpredictable administrative difficulties and often precipitated discontent, particularly among deeply committed personnel with “…reasonable expectations” of opportunities for advancement. Invariably, they are forced to watch (law enforcement perspective), “…crapaud” sitting in their living rooms “…smoking their pipes.” (Former Prime Ministers Bird A&B & ManningT&T). Then there are the inescapable, but vexatious issues of “…discriminatory practices and charges of rejection, victimization and unequal treatment.”
Recent observations suggested a “…perplexing apartheid-like mentality” and a disturbing trend in some jurisdictions to overlook suitably qualified personnel for reasons seemingly not consistent with acceptable standards of “…qualifications; …professional knowledge and ability; …experience; …competencies; …effectiveness and undivided organizational loyalty. These may be arguable or debatable qualities; however, if it were not so, “…Why are personnel with suspected traits or questionable character are retained to infect others?” It boggles the mind.
Personnel, however, appeared ambivalent in accepting that the several personnel who were touted in a media-frenzy way as being trained to assume command and control had failed so miserably and not fit for the positions for which they were selected for training. Those who were not considered for elevation believed that the limited training exercise was an end to justify a mean.
They felt that they had been manipulated and out-foxed. That said personnel may find it difficult not to assume that the contractual arrangements, written or otherwise, may have also stymied their prospects. He has the overall responsibility for command and control of the agency; he is deemed to know the personnel, their character, abilities, capabilities, competencies and potentialities. The vexed question was,”…Who or what might have been recommended on their behalf for such positional considerations? Like singing sensation Stevie Wonder, “…The answer is blowing in the wind.”
From an objective perspective, it would appear that the “… selectively trained personnel” for command and control, may have been out-matched by the qualifications, professional knowledge, experience, leadership, management, administrative and communication skills, perceptiveness and wits of Deputy Commissioner Vere Browne. His desires or preferences may have also been thwarted through other considerations and/or the supposedly shortened contractual arrangements as announced.
It is clear from its specific functions, the “PSC” is “…neither charged with the daily administrative and operational responsibilities or even the superintendence of the police service.” It is also very clear that the Commissioner of Police is not subordinate to the “PSC” and should not be subject to what personnel invariably touted as “…imposing egoistic intrusiveness and whimsical exploits.” The areas of responsibility for the “PSC” are clearly defined, hence, a definitive demarcation line ought to be drawn and acutely followed, lest policy-makers wish to promote disaffection or allow for recurring conflicts among Heads of organizations, bodies and/or agencies.
However, its functions are dependent upon certain administrative procedures to be complied by the Commissioner of Police, prior to “…official referrals.” If these were not so, a Magistrate or Judge could simply summoned citizens, charged, tried, convicted and condemned those considered guilty to death or impose penal servitude at the nation’s penitentiary.
Consequently, it behoves every serving member to be conversant with the legal requirements and procedures affecting retirement and accordingly, act in conformity or compliance with established administrative policies. It is also the desire of affected personnel that administrators avoid subjective, discriminatory or punitive decisions that may have the effect of “…abrogating, abridging or infringing” entrenched constitutional rights, freedoms and liberties of the individual and more importantly their right to “…unfettered voluntary retirement.”
Within this jurisdiction, under the “…Police Welfare Association Rules” it states “…It shall be the duty of the Board to consider and make representations …with regard to all matters affecting welfare and efficiency of the members of the Force and …of the force as a whole.” Thus, its Executive is given a mandate to look into matters of welfare and efficiency and to safeguard and protect the interest of its personnel.
For obvious reasons, managers must be acutely aware that frequently, what occurred within the agency or in the privacy of homes are also transferred to the workplace when disagreeable, rude and difficult employees report to work. Frequently, the presence spelled trouble; they are offensive, aggravating and irritating. In most instances, such display is offending and infectious to other personnel, thus, creating unexpected and unnecessary managerial/employees and organizational problems.
Very often, the provocation, aggravation or agitation may simply start with expressed feelings of discriminatory practices against them. Additionally, these feelings may have been pent up from the home environment due to family or domestic disputes or an inability to provide sustenance or difficulty in accessing funds to provide school, medicine or even transportation fees.
Notwithstanding, personnel may be compassionately helped out of their situations or mindset, monitored, motivated and inspired. That said attitudinal change cannot be achieved by rigidity, implementation or enforcement of rules or regulations and since”… fool’s paradise” is an only cliché,’ fanciful promises may cause further irritability. A functional approach has always been adopted with satisfactory measures of success. Thus, with measured applicability of strategies, it may produce results that are encouraging and/or satisfying.
While law enforcement departments are not welfare agencies, within most structure is an organization that is expected to agitate progressive changes and to do so responsibly, with reasonableness and justification. Notwithstanding, it has a duty to conform to acceptable standard of behaviour or coercively cooperate in the administrative search for solutions, if not amicably and professionally.
Even though the seemingly ill-fated approach to the early retirement, administratively called “…Voluntary Separation Package (VSP)” may have resulted in serious administrative challenges, many lessons may have been learnt to guide managers to avoid “…where angels fear to tread.” However, as it affects members of the Constabulary, those who may wish to withdraw from the service, since words are not a motivating factor, they may also be encouraged tangibly or be allowed to return their uniforms. This may just help to avert the “…RCMP SYNDRONE.”
CONCLUSION
For all intents and purposes, it might be useful, if not necessary to develop strategies and to formulate structured functional programmes to address matters affecting welfare and particularly to satisfy dissatisfied and/or disgruntled personnel wishing to retire voluntarily from the service. Hence, there may be the creation of “…an enabling environment; …opportunities for advancement; …professional development of personnel; …provision of tangible incentives that may induce attitudinal and/or behavioural change; …improve conditions of service; …reinforce work ethics and promptly address environmental issues within the workplace and personal issues, if revealed. More importantly, however, in the wider scope, there ought to be reasonable checks and balances to; (a) …ensure the availability of organizational developmental needs, (b) …to maintain citizenry safety through effective crime control strategies and mechanisms and (c) …to protect the national economic and security interests.
See related stories:
Withdrawal from Service- Roles Functions Responsibilities- Part II
Withdrawal from Service- Part I
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Hits: 238
Comments (0)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Newer news items:
- Trapped in Criticism
- Through the Eyes of Sir Maclean Emanuel
- Stained by Slavery and Colonialism- PART 11
- Stained by Slavery Colonialism- PART 1
- An Epic Case of Victimization
Older news items:
- Withdrawal from Service- Roles Functions Responsibilities- Part II
- Withdrawal from Service- Part I
- Societal Rules Speaker and Parliamentarians
- Petition Jubilation or Tribulation
- Parliamentary Quandary Quibbling and Pondering- Part II
