Prison Service: Who is your leader?

IT SHOULD not fall to the Prison Officers Association (POA) to point out the absurdity of the Prison Service operating without a substantive or even an acting prisons commissioner.

Making this already unfortunate situation even messier was the decision by the Ministry of National Security to intervene in the appointment process by making an acting-role recommendation to the Public Service Commission, lack of authority to do so notwithstanding.

Did the Government learn nothing from the chaos that followed the acting appointments and consequent reversals of those appointments of first Gary Griffith, then McDonald Jacob, after Mr Griffith's contract as Commissioner of Police ended last year?

That unfortunate chain of events led to the collapse of the Police Service Commission and a vacuum in the police leadership that is yet to be properly, authoritatively filled.

Dennis Pulchan went on pre-retirement leave on February 23, just eight months after he was confirmed as prisons commissioner.

When his retirement was announced, a media release said Deopersad Ramoutar, described as the highest-ranked officer in the service, would act as prisons commissioner.

But Mr Ramoutar is engaged in court action against the Public Service Commission: he has an interim injunction against it to block the institution of a competency-based interview for promotion to senior superintendent.

As a result, after announcing his acting appointment on February 23, the Prison Service hastily retracted that statement the same day.

The POA is extremely dissatisfied with this “sad state of affairs,” saying it shows “the great incompetence, neglect and culpability” of the commission and what it called the commission’s “constant failure to carry out its lawful obligations in having timely assessments and promotions to fill vacancies” in the Prison Service.

As it said, Mr Pulchan’s impending retirement was no secret, and in fact the association is also critical of him for apparently not submitting a recommendation as to a successor months ago.

The association also says it tried numerous times to discuss these and other issues with the Director of Personnel Administration, but with no success.

In light of these numerous failures, the association wants an immediate and comprehensive investigation into the deficiencies of the commission.

The commission must explain how it allowed the leadership of the Prison Service to reach this awkward situation through inattention to the required promotions and appointments. A well-intentioned effort to modernise the selection process shouldn't have led to a collapse in promotions and leadership appointments that has reportedly gone on for years.

For his part, the National Security Minister is also to explain why his ministry felt it necessary and appropriate to interfere in the admittedly sluggish operations of an independent service commission.

No aspect of this situation is acceptable. It is necessary to have effective, properly appointed leadership in the Prison Service. This should be clear to anyone and a front-burner issue for the commission.