Dear Sir,

For what purpose is the system of rules in a democratic society? The rule of law is foundational to resilient democratic societies. The basic premise of the rule of law is that no one is above the law and that the law “rules” through public and legitimate laws that apply to everyone. The underlying premise of rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to and accountable under the law, including lawmakers and those in government positions.

Most of us go about our daily lives, living, working, raising families, all of which are shaped by rules and laws, which is a critical factor for the preservation and advancement of democracy and which is rooted in equal rights and accountability.

I repeat: most of us.

There seems to be a separate and alternate universe in application of the rule of law when it comes to those whom the people choose to form the Government and with whom we entrust our money. Similarly, there is also such a universe for those who work for the Government, implementing its policies. We know this to be true because the position of the Auditor-General, which scrutinises all government expenditures approved by the legislature and then subsequently actioned by government employees, continues to identify “rule-breaking” in its annual report. This has been the case for decades.

So exactly which rulebook am I referring to when it comes to the Government? It is the 112-page document entitled Government of Bermuda — Financial Instructions. These financial instructions apply to every person concerned in, or responsible for, the collection, receipt, custody, issue or payment of public funds. To be clear, I am not talking about some vague performance metric that could have various interpretations; I am talking about established financial rules and regulations which are clearly defined and which the Auditor-General keeps telling us that people in government are not following.

When an auditor-general cannot produce an accurate opinion of the people’s accounts because of the most fundamental things such as absent paper trails for monies spent, double entries made for monies spent, lack of required approvals for special payments, taxpayer revenues being deposited into a non-government account and financial statements in arrears for many years, it is clear that accountability for the most basic performance metrics — set out in the Government’s own code of conduct and regulations in our Constitution Order — are not being followed, with consequences for such appearing to be non-existent. Now, why is that?

For the most part, it is because of three somewhat counterproductive, dysfunctional management systems within our government:

1, The lack of effectiveness of the Public Service Commission. The PSC is the independent management body of the entire Civil Service, responsible directly to the Governor. The PSC ensures that all appointments, promotions, dismissals, performance appraisals and disciplinary matters within Bermuda’s Public Service are conducted efficiently, fairly and without political interference. It is clear that the PSC is not an effective or responsive body tackling the inefficiency and accountability issues that continue to be raised by the Auditor-General.

2, The lack of effectiveness of the position of Head of the Civil Service, which is responsible for all matters internal to the operation of the Civil Service, including matters of discipline. (Yes, discipline.)

3, The critical relationship between ministers and the Civil Service. This can be defined as: “Civil Servants advise, but ministers decide”. Civil servants regularly advise ministers on administrative processes and on the importance of adhering to financial instructions, but ministers may override the advice of the Civil Service with impunity. Also, as the political head of a ministry, each minister is (theoretically) held responsible for all of its acts and omissions, and must bear the consequences of any defect of administration or any aspect of policy. Do they?

So in short, ministers can act with impunity, the Civil Service ultimately is not responsible for its own performance — ministers are, yet are not held accountable — and therefore the function of the PSC appears to be obsolete. Now there’s an administrative management system that is as dysfunctional as you can get. And it is the one that spends our money.

Anyone starting to care a little more?

BEVERLEY CONNELL

Pembroke