In the wake of the Central Planning Authority (CPA) coming under much fire recently over their extraordinary decision to disregard the objections of the Department of Environment and the Cayman Islands Planning Department to grant approval to the filling of mangroves at South Sound, the chair of the Planning Appeals Tribunal has publicly stated an overhaul to the way administrative laws are handled should be implemented by government.

Theresa Pitcairn, in a recent Caymanian Compass article, announced that she has heard allegations of inadequate record keeping and conflicts of interest on the planning board. She believes “the various appointed tribunals across different areas of government should be replaced by a uniform administrative bench operating according to a set of coherent and consistent rules”

Alleluia!

Only two to four full time experienced lawyers supported by a couple of legal secretaries could handle the workload and the cost of salaries could be paid for through fees provided by the disputing parties.

Ms Pitcairn is also concerned at the inadequate record keeping, even at the tribunal level, and conflicts of interest due to the appointments on the CPA that are approved by government ministers.

Political appointments on government bodies are and always will be open to suspicion and credibility. It is a revolving door between the private sector and government and has been going on in nearly every democracy.

Whether and to what extent the appointees or firms they work for benefit from the political appointment largely remains a matter of speculations and anecdotes. If the government who has appointed the official doesn’t vote the way they like they can remove that person immediately. And that is what does happen.

Political appointees can treat their former employers preferentially in procurement, regulatory and oversight, or merger and acquisition decisions. Indirectly they can favour their former employers through long-term strategic planning or through better access to decision makers and information.

In a lot of countries, like the USA and UK, there are various institutional safeguards against conflicts of interests, ranging from specific provisions embodied in ethic codes to congressional committees. Here we have Appeals Tribunals but even there the appointments are largely influenced by the government of the day.

In the USA and UK the success of the political appointments are often measured by the stock market. Here we only have a vigilant press and a too strong vigilant press doesn’t get invited to the party.

I can, therefore, commend Ms Pitcairn for her forthrightness and boldness in saying what she has and her very sensible suggestion to the problem.

Unfortunately, and due to my cynical old age, I don’t see any government here will want to put it into place.