Observation on the poor performance of the PRS/CDA

Observation on the poor management of the PRS/CDA

By Edmond R. Gray, CDO-Grand Cape Mount County

November 13, 2009

Statement of the Facts

On February 2009 County Development Officers (CDOs) were deployed to their various counties of assignment following a bitter and fruitless debate over the implementation of Annex C of the Performance Contractual Agreement. This agreement is between CDOs herein referred to as employees of the SES and the Civil Service Agency through its affiliate partners, herein referred to as employer.  Annex C among others, mandates the Ministry of Planning to provide all CDOs with an ‘adequately furnished office space, transportation for carrying out official duties, adequate communication facilities required for contract execution, adequate office equipment and logistics (Source, SES Performance Contract, 2008)’. Under the Aide Memoire, the Ministry of Planning in collaboration with the Liberian Reconstruction and Development Committee, Office of the President, Ministry of Internal Affairs and LISGIS endorsed the SES’s mandate when they emphasize that to ensure the effective coordination and implementation of the national development agenda at the county level, structures like the Office of the County Development Officer (CDO) and the M&E Assistant engaged with the monitoring and evaluation process were to be strengthened (Source, Aide Memoire, 2008). Accordingly, the goal was to ensure the successful monitoring of overall national progress towards the goals of the PRS and the strategic objectives across the four LRDC pillars (Security, Infrastructure and Basic Services, Economic Revitalization, Governance and Rule of Law).  

Why the Ministry of Planning would not Implement Annex C

Under the terms of the Performance Contract, the Government of Liberia through its affiliate agency, the Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs was to fulfill Annex C of the agreement (see SES Performance Contract, 2008). Not only has this important aspect of the contract not fulfilled, the failure to do so has compromised the integrity of the implementation and monitoring of the Poverty Reduction Strategy and the County Development Agenda (PRS/CDA) respectively.

No will on the part of MPEA to implement Annex C

Despite numerous pressures exerted on officials of the MPEA by the CDOs to implement Annex C, it is almost one year now and nothing has been done about it. There are indications that the Ministry of Planning does not intend to implement Annex C where possible. For instance, despite many demands by the CDOs to have this important subject addressed, representatives within MPEA in the persons of the Minister and his Deputy have employed meaningless excuses and gimmickry to avoid the issue. Furthermore, these officials have sufficiently inferred by their actions or pronouncements of misclassifying CDOs as junior staff members that are not provided for within the hierarchical structure of the MPEA. The denial to provide CDOs assigned vehicles or self furnished offices as mandated by the Performance Contract is consequential of the misclassification. Unabatedly, the focus of the MPEA has now shifted from the successful implementation of the PRS/CDA to one of “personnel discipline”. By misclassifying CDOs from senior executives of the Civil Service Agency to ordinary civil servants violates the performance contract on the one hand, and is sufficient psychological reason why the Ministry does not see it fit to provide them with assigned vehicles.  As a matter of fact, the Minister of Planning has manifested this in varying terms. For instance, in one meeting with CDOs, Minister Konneh made it clear that if any groups were to benefit from assigned vehicles, they will be Assistant Ministers and Directors of MOPEA but not CDOs whom he termed, “ordinary employees”. He also said that his ministry’s budget was only a million dollars that excludes the CDOs. In the past, Minister Konneh has made pronouncements like “those of you who have returned from Ivy League schools in the United States and elsewhere to exercise cockiness and elitism won’t be tolerated here (Konneh, 2009)”. Because the CDOs are aware of the strategic consequence that Annex C has on the successful implementation of the PRS/CDA, and in keeping with contract/employment laws, they reduced their demand for specific performance into writing. Such a move on the parts of CDOs infuriated the Minister and especially his Principle Deputy, Sebastein Muah. Minister Muah stated that the move to have the request signed collectively by all CDOs was synonymous to what he referred to as “collective bargaining”. He could not say which employment or contract laws he was referring to.  As a matter of fact, Minister Muah threatened that “any CDO who failed to take up assignment at his county would be dismissed from the SES” (Muah, 2009). Clearly, there is a lack of will on the part of Minister Konneh and his principle deputies to implement Annex C of the Performance Agreement.

Just another Excuse

Further verifications as to why the MPEA would not implement Annex C of the Performance Contract demonstrated that firstly, there is the myth that the PRS/CDA was the idea of Minister Konneh’s predecessor, Dr. G. Mackintosh; therefore, to successful implement it only enhances the statures of those who derived this brilliant but Minister Konneh. Again, this is only a myth. But when the UNDP confidentially intimated a cross session of CDOs in one acquaintance meeting that MPEA has since turned down a UNDP offer to have CDOs provided with brand new 4x4 jeeps only if the MPEA ensures their upkeeps (maintenance and fuel) adds impetus to this mythology. To concretize this general lack of will, and coupled with the misclassification of the CDOs, Minister Konneh angrily stated that “my personal leadership philosophy would not compel me to beg others for handouts to run this ministry”. Perhaps, the latter pronouncement was what influenced his refusal of the UNDP generous offer. He further stated that Annex C of the performance agreement did not specify that the term ‘transportation’ meant 4x4 jeeps. In his opinion, it could have meant a couple of different things. After telling a boredom story of his tenure with IRC of Conakry, Guinea, he later reduced his anything theory to mean motor bikes. He assured that CDOs would more than likely be provided motor bikes for use in their capacity as Senior Executive Service personnel.

Further Demands by CDOs to have Annex C Implemented

CDOs consider the implementation of Annex C key requirement for the successful and impartial execution of their responsibilities. Because of this, they have relentlessly requested MPEA to act as mandated by the Performance Agreement. Subsequent requests by CDOs regarding Annex C were endeared by one unfulfilled promise to another. For instance, Minister Konneh once assured that Annex C will be fulfilled no soon as the 2008/2009 Supplemental Budget went into effect in July 2009. However, he cleverly conditioned this that CDOs were to be in their various assigned posts. July 2009 swooped through with nothing done. The Minister had once more reneged on his promise. The CDOs filed another grievance to have Annex C implemented. A shift to have this issue addressed was finally hinged upon fiscal budget 2009/2010. We are well on our way through that fiscal budget and this issue still looms in the air. Today, all SES personnel mainly in urban Liberia have assigned transportation less CDOs. May be the term ‘gimmickry’ sounds harsh. But when a leader fails to honor numerous promises made to subordinates or peers, he/she loses flavor.  My inability to honor another piece of the Minister’s pronouncement when others lavished him with praises on his pronouncement that the Honorable Legislature passed MPEA’s 2009/2010 fiscal budget without condition was due to mistrust. This move on my part brought me under the radar. Of course, many CDOs perhaps revered being placed under such radar. Most CDOs dread being terminated as promised by Minister Muah, and today are mute even on matters of their civil and individual liberties. For instance, few months ago, as a Liberian and an Authority on National Security, I commented on some key national security issues which Minister Moah saw as a violation of my employment as a CDO. He unsuccessfully lobbied to have me fired because of that.  Both the Minister and his Deputy have consistently micro managed the SES process to their own cabal. Liberia is a country where a sizable fraction of its small literate class is not exposed to post secondary education, (BBC African Perspective, September 17, 2007; Maxwell 2006; US.gov.state/2007 annual report; World Bank annual report 2003). It is a country where a chunk of the educated class is not willing to relocate to a county beyond Montserrado. To terminate the employment contracts of few that an international HR firm selected as the best among the lot was simply a bluff that ices someone’s ego. I dismiss Minister Muah’s threat towards me as sheer malice and levity.   

No Due Process, No Progressive Discipline Equals No Personnel Management Knowledge

 I was recently excused by the Superintendent, Head of the CDSC, and others within the SES to answer an urgent family maternity and housing matters. The right of the family is a Preamble Declaration under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights also known as the 1948 Convention (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/). Also the right to adequate housing is one sanctioned by the United Nations under Article 11(1) of its Covenants on Human Rights (GESCR, 1991). Moreover, my trip is consistent with the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of the Civil Service Laws under Section 6.3 of the Holiday and Leave portion of the Performance Contract.  While I was away, Minister Muah circulated a request to have my wages/salary withheld while he pursued avenues to have my employment terminated.  Minister Muah’s action further strengthens my belief that he personally hates me. This ambitious euphoria to terminate my employment is also partially visible in past arbitrary actions either by the Minister of Planning or his Principle Deputy, Sebastein Muah. For instance, MPEA has consistently provided gas allowances to all CDOs but me. What else may have influenced such discrimination but hate and malice? I believe these sorts of poi behaviors contravene the Civil Service code of ethics. One can only hope that such unfair policies do not form a part of our nation’s planning process.

Monitoring of the PRS/CDA why is it not working?

The monitoring of the PRS/CDA by CDOs was significantly hampered by the failure to implement Annex C. Only a handful of the PRS/CDA activities have been truly monitored thus far. Thanks to a gesture from the Norwegian Refugee Committee (NRC) which graciously provided few of its vehicles to bring a small number of CDOs at few PRS’s project sites. For most part, not once have the many national projects within the PRS/CDA which the Aide Memoir so vigorously promised to effectively monitor been checked in the past year or so. At some point, MPEA exerted its usual intimidation tactics on CDOs to deliver reports surrounding the implementation of the PRS/CDA whether verified or not.  To be candid, no CDO is in the position to truthfully and precisely report on the progress of any of the PRS/CDA’s projects without valid means of transportation. The idea of the PRS is a brilliant strategic recovery program in my opinion, but the failure to accurately track or monitor its progress may lead to its failure. To some, reporting on the PRS/CDA does not necessarily mean that one must verify the accuracy of what is being reported so long there was some pieces of information to show. Some of us have left our family in the United States to participate in the nation rebuilding process with the focus that Liberia reclaims its position within the comity of nations. I am of the opinion that posterity would judge us tomorrow if we pride to present inaccurate pictures of our noble intervention. At some point, we wanted the UN to realize that the use of the PRS/CDA to rebuild Liberia does not only rest on meeting to meeting (CDSC, WCs, pillars meetings), but on the effective monitoring of all the processes. It could be an understatement to say that the UN which is the principle facilitator is ambivalent about the importance of the monitoring process. Sometimes its actions suggest that there is a general lack of will to ensure compliance. The UN County Support Team (CST) through the UN Civil Affairs was the only agency providing support to the CDOs on the one hand, and the NRC on the other. However, a transitional mandate to hand over matters to Liberian institutions stifled the UN’s ability to continue its unflinching support to the monitoring and evaluation process. As a CDO, one had no means to transport himself; the meager twenty gallons gas allowance that MPEA was providing CDOs is no longer forthcoming. The last time I received one was back in April 2009; MPEA has absolutely no provision for scratch cards or other communication means aside from the wireless internet provided and paid for by the NRC. However, the NRC’s internet gesture ends in December, 2009. And of course you know what happens once this reverts to the MPEA. MPEA has provided no stationery or office equipment to CDOs to run meeting citations aside from two reams of sheet and handful low graded pens provided during deployment. There is a complete shutdown of activities at the county level, if you will. Fatigue is well in sight as the committing of own resources is now the norm. It is a known fact that in change management, one must lead the change that will affect performance and improve organizational culture to affect an individual’s personal effectiveness (http://monkeykingmanagement.com). It goes to say that the emotions and fulfillment an individual experiences are all interrelated to corporate and public sector work performance. The leadership at MPEA has not led that change which influences the effectiveness of CDOs.

A change management theory-what affects one affects all

Unfortunately, there is a chain reaction that affects every portion of the PRS. The poor performance of a composite piece like the Office of the County Development Officer from lack of logistical support affects the way the UN or GOL does business. All of these institutions hinge on a slippery slope such that fall of one tips the others to lose balance and likely follow. The many reports reflecting the lack of support for CDOs by MPEA have yielded little or no attention. Today, the intent of the CDSC is not holding. I am of the opinion that the PRS at the county level is in dire limbo.  

Has he been fired yet?

Although the UN through its Civil Affairs section said it has also brought pressure on the MPEA to honor its obligation to the CDOs, it seems to have had no affects so far. During my short family emergency trip, the UN complained that my absence from the county was impacting the CDSC. That just tells how closely we are bound on the development chain. Rumors had circulated that I was frustrated with the MPEA’s lack of support, and have since returned to the family in the United States and won’t be coming back. Of course, for the likes of Minister Muah, this is a welcoming opportunity to fulfill his burning desire to have me fired.  The glottal interest that the UN has taken on the meeting of the CDSC and not other portions of the implementation of the PRS solidifies its ambivalence to the entire process. It is amazing how my purported absence created a stare to Ministers Konneh and Muah, but not the impact their lack of support to the CDOs has on the implementation of the PRS.  These men were inundated by their anxiousness to dismiss me and not to follow due process. The hasty circulation of dismissal notices to the UN, Civil Service and others even where they lack the direct authority to dismiss me, clearly demonstrates such anxiety. I wish these men could borrow a pinch of such enthusiasm to implement Annex C. You see the processes to dismiss SES personnel are clearly crafted in the performance contract, a document that is not honored by these men. To say the least, the statement by the UN was tenuous. Besides, these men solely relied on hearsay to take a ceremonial termination decision. Why should an administrator without regard for employment regulation effect a termination? If malice was not the undertone, why would the head of a regulated agency like the MPEA would enquire publicly whether someone has been terminated yet? It is interesting to note that the CDOs who head all the strategic county initiatives of the PRS/CDA are the only senior officials without vehicles in the county, and perhaps among SES personnel. Today, LISGIS, all heads of Line Ministries, County Officials down to the Public Defenders have assigned vehicles. This is shameful and disgusting. No need to look elsewhere for answers. The Minister of MPEA who serves as Chairperson of the Board for LISGIS approved vehicles for all LISGIS Directors but failed to do so for CDOs. This further tells how low the MPEA considers CDOs.  

Theory of Hearsay

The Minister also asked how an act could go on for three or four months without anyone noticing. Does that mean he finds the claim incredulously unbelievable? This also tells how unfounded the UN claim is. But mostly, this shows that the MPEA has truly abandoned the CDOs. Aside from the Performance Contract, (Selwyn, 2008) also discusses HR procedures that these men can benefit from. I am sure that these step by step procedures are too boring to match the level of anxiousness in these men. Moreover, not once in the last ten months or so since deployment of CDOs has the MPEA or the M&E Coordinator visited a leeward county to check on the progress of CDOs. One report I saw pointed out that Henrique Wilson, the M&E Coordinator visited some counties. These types of blatant deception should have instead warranted the attention of the Minister far more than that of an unsupported CDO. For most part, Henrique graciously enjoys exceptional benefits for doing nothing.  In fact, our MPEA supervisory team is armchair bound in Monrovia while CDOs languish in some of the remotest parts of Liberia. Such act of good citizenship by CDOs is sometimes overlooked. But if you think residing in Monrovia is difficult, try the jungle of Sinoe County, or Congo Mano in Cape Mount. With their level of accomplishments, no one must think that people serving as CDOs cannot find a job in Monrovia. This shunning of CDO is not accidental; it is coiled in the belief that they deserve nothing more. The refusal by the Minister to accept a UNDP transportation offer reinforces that belief. Minister Moah’s action to ceremoniously dismiss a commissioned senior executive staff person is indicative that either he lacks the managerial know-how, or was trampled by a wishful ambition. These baseless threats and bullying by men whose honorable functions were to help defend the rights of workers everywhere, demonstrate sheer lack of consideration for others. In contract law, Clyatt v United States (197 U.S. 207, 1905) holds that a demand for specific performance is binding on a party to perform a specific act. Usually remedy lies in what is stated in the contract. No one asks for anything more but what was agreed upon as contained in Annex C. Such unnecessary intransigence or gestures to fulfill Annex C have no place in law. They only violate civil service standing procedures everywhere, Lando & Rose (2003).  

Conclusion

In concluding I wish to make the following recommendations that Annex C of the Performance Contract be executed to facilitate the smooth implementation of the PRS/CDA. That the Civil Service conducts regular in service leadership training for people in management positions. Also the Civil Service should circulate its personnel action notices on the rights of employee/employer to people in leadership positions. If the government wants the PRS to be successful, it should once more place it in an independent LRDC as it was previously.