When you appoint an individual to a particular management position, be it CEO, brigadier, chairman, minister, Commissioner of Police etc it is assumed that said appointee possesses the necessary skills, qualifications, etc to successfully carry out the function expected of them.

In this "little black speck" (the words of former prime minister George Chambers) in the Caribbean Sea this simple concept seems to have escaped our political representatives and we find them in their state of paranoia attempting to interfere in day-to-day management functions of their skilled managers, and worse, bringing these matters to Parliament where one would hope more important matters would be debated.

In the case of the acquisition of a spotter plane it was determined by the Commissioner of Police in conjunction with his top officers that a fixed wing light aircraft would be the way to go, subject to trial. The approved police budget allowed for this purchase and the Commissioner had the authority without consultation with his Minister to proceed, which he did. In other words, he is the chief executive and acted like one.

This simple decision however highlights the folly of (i) the Opposition, who saw it as corruption and proceeded to waste parliamentary time, (ii) the Minister, who should have pointed out that the CoP had the authority to make the decision and (iii) the Prime Minister, who incorrectly asked for an investigation into the matter.

As a senior executive for many years I know that micro-management by chairmen and boards is mostly uncalled for, demeaning and stupid. If you appoint a top manager lay out his authority and approve his expenditure budget, let him do his job and check the results.

Finally ignore the many would-be experts on air surveillance as none of them have all the facts and the Opposition with their massive blimp failure should just keep quiet.

Ian Gianetti

via e-mail