Dear Editor,
I believe the recent decision made by Minister of Local Government and Community Development Desmond McKenzie to block his son, Marcus, from being hired by the National Solid Waste Management Authority (NSWMA) affords us unique opportunities to have objective debates vis-à-vis legal versus ethical public and political decisions that may have positive outcomes that can be nurturing to our democracy.
In the world of governance, it’s oftentimes impossible to make a decision that’s inclusive of these two tenets as the debate over what is legal versus ethical has been at the forefront of political and public debates for centuries. I quote former Contractor General Greg Christie, who applauded McKenzie’s decision as saying, “I often told my staff at the OCG (Office of the Contractor General), if something is capable of two interpretations, the one that’s least favourable to you will be used.” As it relates to this particular situation, I believe that an understanding of the intricacies involved in making public or political decisions, relative to the dilemma of legal versus ethical, gives us the opportunity to have effective debates about the state of standing laws and or rules and regulations that direct public employment policies so as to make the employment process both fair and accountable.
Hence, decisions such as McKenzie’s should likely send important signals to the legislative body and challenge the status quo of related laws in our democracy to make public employment less bureaucratic and more effective and fair for both decision-makers and potential public employees.
As subtle as this situation may appear, McKenzie’s decision could also have a rippling effect across government agencies. It may well create timely opportunities for other public agencies and representatives to publicly unsubscribe from acts of nepotism or actions that may be legal, but have an unavoidable adverse effect of perception of nepotism. The decision is one that could positively change public perception of government agencies; if not across the board, then certainly as it relates to his integrity and that of his ministry.
Given the history of nepotism in our government agencies and our political process, we should use this unique opportunity to not only applaud McKenzie, but to also have objective debates about how to make the hiring process both fair and accountable. Other government agencies should also use this opportunity to publicly denounce all acts or implications of nepotism, as it would create a positive public perception.
Shane McFarlane
shanejas1@gmail.com
I believe the recent decision made by Minister of Local Government and Community Development Desmond McKenzie to block his son, Marcus, from being hired by the National Solid Waste Management Authority (NSWMA) affords us unique opportunities to have objective debates vis-à-vis legal versus ethical public and political decisions that may have positive outcomes that can be nurturing to our democracy.
In the world of governance, it’s oftentimes impossible to make a decision that’s inclusive of these two tenets as the debate over what is legal versus ethical has been at the forefront of political and public debates for centuries. I quote former Contractor General Greg Christie, who applauded McKenzie’s decision as saying, “I often told my staff at the OCG (Office of the Contractor General), if something is capable of two interpretations, the one that’s least favourable to you will be used.” As it relates to this particular situation, I believe that an understanding of the intricacies involved in making public or political decisions, relative to the dilemma of legal versus ethical, gives us the opportunity to have effective debates about the state of standing laws and or rules and regulations that direct public employment policies so as to make the employment process both fair and accountable.
Hence, decisions such as McKenzie’s should likely send important signals to the legislative body and challenge the status quo of related laws in our democracy to make public employment less bureaucratic and more effective and fair for both decision-makers and potential public employees.
As subtle as this situation may appear, McKenzie’s decision could also have a rippling effect across government agencies. It may well create timely opportunities for other public agencies and representatives to publicly unsubscribe from acts of nepotism or actions that may be legal, but have an unavoidable adverse effect of perception of nepotism. The decision is one that could positively change public perception of government agencies; if not across the board, then certainly as it relates to his integrity and that of his ministry.
Given the history of nepotism in our government agencies and our political process, we should use this unique opportunity to not only applaud McKenzie, but to also have objective debates about how to make the hiring process both fair and accountable. Other government agencies should also use this opportunity to publicly denounce all acts or implications of nepotism, as it would create a positive public perception.
Shane McFarlane
shanejas1@gmail.com