Opinion: Cabinet Manual reveals weaknesses Loop Cayman Islands
Black Immigrant Daily News
Readers are asked to note that Op-eds do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of Loop Cayman.
by ‘Freelancer’
Having reviewed the Cabinet Manual, I am of the opinion that it contains some governance and other weaknesses. These relate to pre-Cabinet meetings, access to a previous Cabinet’s documents, procedure for dissolution of Parliament following a vote of no confidence and matters relating to the removal of ministers.
Pre-Cabinet meetings
Pre-Cabinet meetings under section 55 of the Manual are eyebrow-raising because, objectively speaking, they provide opportunities for collusion prior to the “real” Cabinet meeting.
To illustrate this concern:
Section 55 of the Manual allows the Governor to convene a pre-Cabinet meeting with the ex officio Members (Attorney General and Deputy Governor) According to the Manual, the non-voting Cabinet members at the pre-Cabinet meeting may discuss and exchange views on items on the agenda for the upcoming Cabinet meetingIt is therefore open to the parties at the pre-Cabinet meeting to agree on their approach for the upcoming, real Cabinet meeting
I think that, if this scenario were to occur, then the non-voting members who attended the pre-Cabinet meeting could possibly sway the voting members to a particular course of action, agreed by the non-voting members beforehand. The risk of this happening is exacerbated by the fact that the person with the power to call pre-Cabinet meetings also chairs the real Cabinet meeting.
To avoid this scenario from happening in real life (and the governance concerns that may arise), Cabinet agenda items should only be discussed at the real Cabinet meeting rather than at any pre-Cabinet meeting.
Access to a previous Cabinet’s documents
Once a real Cabinet meeting is held, any materials produced at the meeting will generally remain confidential.
This confidentiality goes as far as prohibiting current ministers from accessing Cabinet documents produced by a past government of a different political party.
While there are some exceptions to this rule (for example, legal opinions and documents already in the public domain may be disclosed), I think that the general restriction that current ministers cannot see past Cabinet documents could make it difficult for current ministers to understand the reasoning behind previous ministers’ stance on a particular policy. This may leave current ministers to guess why or why not previous Cabinets took the positions they did, rather than having the benefit of the intelligence resting on the files of previous Cabinets.
Dissolution of Parliament upon removal of the Premier
Another situation where reasons should be provided is when the Governor decides to dissolve Parliament and call an early election following the passing of a vote of no confidence in the Premier.
To explain:
Section 78.1 of the Manual and section 51 of the constitution each state that the Governor shall revoke the appointment of the Premier if a motion that the Parliament should declare a lack of confidence in the Government receives the affirmative votes of not less than two-thirds of the elected members of ParliamentHowever, before revoking the Premier’s appointment, the Governor shall consult the Premier and may, acting in his or her discretion, dissolve the Parliament instead of revoking the appointment
What I think is absent from these sections is that the Governor should be required to provide reasons (to voters and the general public) for dissolving Parliament and permitting an early election to be called instead of revoking the Premier’s appointment.
In my view, providing such reasons would enhance transparency and would assist the public in understanding how the decision to not revoke the Premier’s appointment and, instead, dissolve Parliament is reasonable, rational and proportionate.
Tenure of other ministers
In addition to the terms for the Premier’s revocation, rules should be added to the Manual for the removal of ministers in the event they are linked to domestic abuse or another serious crime (perhaps, the people may wish to ask for a referendum to amend the Cayman constitution on the same point).
Such amendments would reflect lessons learned from transgressions of past officials, which were accompanied by loud public outcry demanding change.
As long as these types of changes are not made, the public will continue to question whether the government truly wishes to make bad actors accountable or just offer hype as to what is no more than a smoke screen of accountability.
NewsAmericasNow.com
