By Information Minister Senator Jovan Johnson and Livern Barrett/Senior Staff Reporters
Two members of the panel that interviewed candidates for the top post at the Financial Investigations Division (FID) have declined to speak publicly amid mounting pressure on the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service to explain how a key job requirement of law enforcement was suddenly removed.
The change cleared the path for the controversial appointment of chartered accountant Dennis Chung as chief technical director of the FID, Jamaica’s main financial crimes investigation agency. He does not possess law enforcement experience.
Bishop Conrad Pitkin and Professor Denise Eldemire-Shearer are among the known members of the five-person interview panel for the FID chief technical director post. Both declined requests for comment from The Gleaner on the decision to drop the law-enforcement experience requirement between the first and second advertisements.
Eldemire-Shearer, who is also a member of the Public Service Commission (PSC), said she cannot comment in keeping with the rules of the commission.
Their silence comes as the Fayval Williams-led finance ministry, under growing public scrutiny, withdrew a statement it issued last Wednesday that offered what would have been the Government’s third public explanation for the change.
Attention on the panel’s authority to alter government job requirements sharpened following a revelation by Information Minister Senator Dr Dana Morris Dixon on July 2.
SECOND OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
In what became the second official explanation, Morris Dixon said the change stemmed from “conversations” within the interview panel.
“That’s not a document,” she said, dismissing questions about records. “There is nothing to hide in relation to that selection process.”
She disclosed that, after retired Deputy Commissioner of Police Fitz Bailey declined the FID post on January 21, “the panel that had been doing the interviews” decided to re-advertise the role to “broaden the pool of individuals”.
However, her account conflicted with a June 27 response from Solicitor General Marlene Aldred to a Sunday Gleaner access to information request.
Aldred provided a redacted copy of Chung’s contract and scores from a March interview, but said “other official documents that were identified as relating to the request are exempt… [and] will therefore not be disclosed” on the basis that disclosure could breach privacy or trigger a lawsuit on confidentiality grounds.
The solicitor general did not say documents were nonexistent.
Morris Dixon also did not say whether the Ministry of Finance, which has oversight of the FID, was consulted or approved the decision. Her suggestion that the panel made the change has triggered unease in government circles.
She said the finance ministry would issue a statement, which it did on Wednesday afternoon, but the ministry withdrew it within hours. No explanation has been given.
That statement indicated that the recruitment process was led by the PSC, which varied the job description after Bailey declined the offer.
“The PSC advertised the position again utilising the same job description (JD) but availed itself of the flexibility allowed as the original JD gave the leeway to have equivalent qualifications,” it said – highlighting in bold the final words of the phrase: “minimum of 12 years of experience in law enforcement or equivalent” in the November 24, 2024 ad. It did not define what would be equivalent to law enforcement.
REVISED AD
The revised ad, published January 23, stated: “twelve (12) years related experience at the managerial level, five (5) of which should be at a senior management level.”
The ministry statement did not address the core issue: why the law enforcement requirement was removed, even if equivalents were allowed.
Notably, although the revised ad dropped law enforcement as a minimum requirement, the section on “required knowledge, skills, and competencies” still demanded “expert knowledge of law enforcement, legislation, and binding agreements” – mirroring the original ad.
The ministry has also failed to respond to questions submitted by The Gleaner on July 2 to Financial Secretary Darlene Morrison.
The questions, acknowledged by the ministry’s communications unit, asked about the process for changing job requirements, whether proper steps were followed in the FID case, and whether Morris Dixon’s comments were accurate.
Chung was appointed to lead the FID on June 2 under a two-year contract. He was one of four shortlisted in the second round and scored the highest at 87.6 per cent.
While the finance ministry’s internal steps for revising job criteria are not publicly outlined, the OSC has a recruitment manual for ministries, departments, and agencies publishes on its website.
What appears to be the latest version, released in October 2021, states in Section 6.1 that job descriptions must be developed or revised by the relevant human resource manager and the immediate supervisor. Any changes must be submitted to the Corporate Management and Establishment Branch at the Ministry of Finance for evaluation and approval before recruitment proceeds.
The manual also states that if a candidate selected declines an offer, the offer may be presented to the “next available runner-up candidate (where one exists)”.
In a recent example, the National Land Agency (NLA) was required to seek permission from the finance ministry before removing a mandatory requirement for a senior post. In a May 2024 ATI response, the NLA disclosed a 2022 letter it sent requesting a no-objection to advertise the role without the requirement. Among other things, the NLA argued that while certification with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors had benefits, “it limits prospective qualified candidates”.
The ministry initially issued a no-objection with several conditions before formal authorisation and said NLA was wrong to advertise the job with the change without submitted the additional documents. The ministry later blocked the attempt after an audit by its Corporate Management and Establishment Branch.
QUESTIONS BEHIND STATEMENT WITHDRAWAL
“I find it curious as to why they (finance ministry) would withdraw their statement,” said Jamaica Chamber of Commerce President Phillip Ramson on Saturday. “Are they going to issue a new statement? Are they not planning to say anything further? Everybody else needs to hear.”
Ramson is among several business and civil society leaders demanding transparency. The Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ), the Jamaica Manufacturers and Exporters Association, National Integrity Action, and the MSME Alliance have all called for answers.
PSOJ President Metry Seaga previously said it was “more than reasonable” for Jamaicans to know why the job requirements were changed, even while expressing support for Chung’s appointment.
The appointment has also drawn criticism from the Opposition People’s National Party and civil society figures who point to Chung’s 2023 public questioning of an Integrity Commission referral involving the prime minister to the FID as a potential conflict of interest.
A senior government official, not authorised to speak publicly, told The Sunday Gleaner the shifting narratives have been damaging.
“What is so sensitive about the information asked? Even if the truth comes out, who is going to believe anything when you have so many changes? I am not aware that an interview panel has the authority that the minister of information claims it has. The ministry or the OSC should correct the minister.”
The official added:“The ministry is usually very tight with other agencies when they step out of line. But in this case, it fumbled. When you say and take back, that’s almost a fatal blow to the credibility of any future statements.”
Former Jamaica Civil Service Association President O’Neil Grant acknowledged the tension between privacy and accountability in public hiring.
“The state must be careful but must not withhold information without providing good justification,” said Grant, who commented before the finance ministry issued and recalled its statement. “For public officers, there is a lower bar for privacy, a sort of occupational hazard, so to speak. The various processes and institutions within the public service go a far way to identify accounting and accountable officers. Accounting and accountable officers do have a duty regarding secrecy, but this must be weighed against the public good.”
He said: “Now, the conversation is about why they didn’t say what Minister Dana (Morris Dixon) said earlier in the day. We are in a low trust environment.”
editorial@gleanerjm.com
Questions Submitted by The Gleaner to the Ministry of Finance (July 2)
1. What specific role (s) did the Ministry of Finance or any of its functionaries play in the removal of the law enforcement requirement from the second advertisement for the Financial Investigations Division Chief Technical Director post?
2. Why was the requirement removed? And who from the ministry authorised the change?
3. What is the process for changing job requirements?
4. Were all steps of that process followed before the second advertisement of the FID post? If not, what explains any deviation?
5. Confirm whether the law enforcement requirement removal was considered by the Corporate Management and Establishment Branch. If yes, when, and what was the branch’s position?
6. Confirm whether the law enforcement requirement removal was considered by the Post Operations Committee. If yes, when, and what was the branch’s position?
7. Does the Ministry accept that the lack of transparency around this process, especially the refusal of the Office of the Services Commissions to disclose key information, may erode public trust in the FID and in the Government’s commitment to merit-based appointments?
Follow-up questions after the Information Minister’s statement (July 2):
1. Is the minister correct in saying that the FID CTD job requirements were changed by the interview panel?
2. Does the Finance Ministry consider it appropriate for an interview panel to unilaterally alter job requirements without documented approval from the responsible ministry or an oversight body?
3. Do interview panels have any authority to change job requirements?
4. If yes, please indicate the relevant policy that supports that, including when it took effect.