Donald Scott seems to believe that the issues involved relating to the amendments to the Public Service Commission Regulations are complex and understandable by only a few initiates, of which he is one. I disagree. They are relatively straightforward and it would be helpful if he fully disclosed the facts and did not misrepresent them.

Dealing first with the issue of the scope of the Public Service Commission’s responsibilities, Mr Scott repeats the claim that “the role defined for the Public Service Commission is clear and precise — it is an appointing authority”, implying that this is the constitutional limit of their authority. However, this is not so. The relevant section — Section 82 (1) — says “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, power to make appointments to public offices, and to remove or exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices, is vested in the Governor acting in accordance with the recommendation of the Public Service Commission.” In other words, the Constitution provides for it to be both an appointing authority, a disciplinary authority and a removing authority; not, as Mr Scott implies, only an appointing authority — and this authority extends generally to all public servants.

Dealing second with the issue of whether this broad control over disciplinary control and removal means that the Constitution permits the Public Service Commission to be involved in performance appraisals, this issue has already been resolved — since at least 2001. The Public Service Regulations 2001 — at Section 22 (1) — provide that “every head of department shall make and submit written performance reports to the Commission on officers serving in their departments in such form and by such date as the Commission may prescribe”.

Why this was limited to those below department head, itself one below the level of permanent secretary, is anybody’s guess. But what is clear is that appraisals are within the powers granted to the Public Service Commission under the Constitution.

Dealing third with the issue of disciplinary control/removal, and thus appraisals, of the cabinet secretary, Mr Scott claims that office of the Secretary to the Cabinet/Head of the Civil Service, among others, is exempt from performance appraisals under the Constitution and implies that it is the Governor, acting alone, who has the power to remove and to exercise disciplinary control over the Secretary to Cabinet/Head of the Civil Service. This is untrue. Section 82 (4) of the Constitution exempts the Secretary to the Cabinet/Head of the Civil Service from the general powers of the PSC to appoint, exercise disciplinary control over and remove public servants in respect of appointment only and explicitly leaves disciplinary control and the power to remove this person with the Governor acting on the recommendations of the PSC — the same as for any other public servant.

I see no section of the Constitution or Public Service Commission Regulations exempting anyone from performance appraisals. If there is one, perhaps Mr Scott can point it out.

Dealing finally with the “politicisation” of the Public Service Commission, he claims that having the Public Service Commission run an appraisal process, including setting objectives, will “politicise” it because they will then have a “vested interest in the delivery of the Government’s political agenda”.

I disagree. The Public Service Commission will have no more of a vested interest in the delivery of the Government’s agenda than does the Civil Service. Is Donald Scott suggesting that the Civil Service is “politicised”? In fact, having a proper appraisal process should protect against the politicisation of the Civil Service, since an independent body, the PSC, can assess this point directly and discipline or remove a public servant who engages in it. I agree with Mr Scott that the overwhelming majority of public sector workers work to achieve good outcomes for all of the people of Bermuda. However, to suggest that it is appropriate for these individuals to be subject to performance appraisals, but that the persons to whom they are accountable should be accountable to no one is nonsensical.

Mr Scott would have you believe that there is “strong framework of accountability in the public service”. Really? For whom?

It is clear that there are significant issues with the efficacy of the Civil Service. You need only read the Report of the Sage Commission, the Auditor-General’s reports for 2010-2012 — among others — and have read the proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry to see that all is not well with the way the Civil Service is structured, and the way it was run; on Donald Scott’s watch.

To attack such criticisms, made after significant research and inquiry, as being “driven by ignorance, malice or prejudice” without providing any evidence to support this view, is, well, ignorant, malicious and prejudiced.

• Tom Conyers, a retired accountant, is the former chairman of the Measurement and Metrics Committee of the Sage Commission