The art of meetings: Cabinet secretary offers progressive suggestions

Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan has opened a fresh front in the campaign for transparency and accessibility in governance. Last week, he wrote to Union secretaries, suggesting that they shed their “perceived reluctance” to interact with people not associated with the government but who may wish to meet them in connection with the work involving their ministries. He pointed out that such meetings had utility in terms of offering insights into “the actual state of affairs in the field” and clarify misunderstandings about government policies or intentions. Most significantly, he suggested, these meetings should take place in the office rather than in unofficial settings such as clubs or hotels.

 

The Cabinet secretary’s missive is certainly progressive in intent. By encouraging a structured approach to interactions with non-officials, the aim, no doubt, is to make the bureaucracy more proactive and responsive to the needs of the people. It is significant that Dr Somanathan’s letter even spells out the range of people bureaucrats could meet in their office — contractors; members of trade unions, political parties, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs); employees in the private sector or chambers of commerce; and someone under investigation by a law-enforcement agency or having a dispute with the department on a contractual matter or an issue that is sub judice or under arbitration (interestingly, this list does not include journalists). To address the issue of discomfort at meeting people who may be controversial in the eyes of the political dispensation, Dr Somanathan has suggested that the secretary concerned could ask another officer to be present. 

The latter suggestion may add a degree of probity to the interaction but it has its limitations. As controversies over coal block allocations, disinvestment, and the 2G telecom scam have demonstrated over the past two decades, the statute of limitations does not appear to apply to bureaucratic decisions. If anything, the travails of bureaucrats involved in these issues — for some of them decades after retiring — have done much to stifle bureaucratic decision-making. In this climate of fear, it is unlikely that the addition of another official as a witness will help since the account of the interaction will remain in the realm of hearsay. In this respect, it would be a good idea to include as standard practice the concept of the “memorandum of conversation” or “memcon”, a written record of conversation made immediately after the event and kept in the official files. 

The practice is less intimidating than taking minutes or recording conversations, which may deter an open discussion. This is the discipline that is routinely followed by diplomats (the external affairs ministry is excluded in the letter) and, in the United States (US) and other Western governments, by senior intelligence-agency chiefs. For instance, then Federal Bureau of Investigation chief James Comey’s memcon of his dinner with President Donald Trump at the White House, revealed important facts about Russia’s interference in the US elections of 2016 without compromising his own integrity. Thus, while Dr Somanathan’s suggestions will help improve policy and decision-making in the government, the challenge will be to ensure that more senior bureaucrats pay heed to his suggestions.