There is need for clarification either from Dean Peart, the local government minister, or Ethlyn Norton-Coke, the chairman of the National Solid Waste Management Agency (NSWMA), as to whether it is the minister or the board who has oversight responsibility for the operational management of the agency.

Or, more necessary perhaps, the Solicitor General, Michael Hylton, should explain the broader principle of the relationship between the boards of statutory agencies and the ministers who appoint them and to whom they report. Our concern is the apparent overlap between the jobs of the two, if not ministerial usurpation of the functions of the boards that they appoint.

Our attention is drawn to this issue over the clear disagreement that has developed between Mr. Peart and and Mrs. Norton-Coke over the handling of the disengagement of Mr. Errol Greene from the management of the NSWMA. Not only has ministerial muscle seemed to prevail, but also that a clear breach has opened making it improbable that Mrs. Norton-Cooke can continue to serve unless in a wimpish, whimpering fashion.

Mr. Greene, we are reminded, was seconded to head the NSWMA from his substantive post as town clerk for the Kingston and St. Andrew Corporation (KSAC). That was in the wake of damning reports by the former Contractor General Derrick McKoy and Auditor-General Adrian Strachan on the management of the agency under its former board and then executive director Alston Stewart.

It was claimed that the management played fast and loose with the government's procurement regulations there was no evidence that this was done for personal gain. So, Mr. Greene was recruited to clean-up the shop and to follow the rules, but was soon accused of breaking them. He was sent on leave and an investigation began, including by the police.

It now seems no one has said so outright, that the case was not proved against Mr. Greene it was agreed to end his service. At first, the board, apparently with the concurrence of the minister, agreed that Mr. Greene should be provided adequate notice and then terminated.

What has now emerged is that Mrs. Norton-Coke has second thoughts about this course of action, given the fact that the case remained unproved and that Mr. Greene had already suffered damage to his reputation, which could lead to legal action.

Solicitor General Hylton apparently believes that the courts would not find a claim by Mr. Greene frivolous or vexatious and a waste of its time whether an action would succeed is another matter.

However, the administration has apparently rejected Mrs. Norton-Coke's proposal for Mr. Greene to be paid for the remainder of his contract and returned to his substantive post. The local government minister has put it out that Mr. Greene has been terminated on the former rather than the latter basis.

One obvious question is whether Mrs. Norton-Coke and her board, even if it reversed itself, was obligated to get the permission of the minister. It seems to us that boards are unnecessary if the organisations that they oversee are to be run by ministerial fiat.

Indeed, the Angus Report into the National Housing Development Corporation pointed to the dangers of overactive, interventionist ministers who involve themselves in day-to-day management of institutions and run them like brotherhoods. Mrs. Norton-Coke should have none of it.