<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>I suggest the Predient makes the appointment of the chairperson and members approved and forwarded by the PSC. This will give the office assume more powers than if the appointment is done by the Cabinet Secretary. I am of the opinion that Clauses 5. (1) and 5. (1) (d) and relelated clauses remain as they rae. Secondly I suggest the veting by Parliament be part of the appointment process. This will ake it more difficult for manipulation of the appoint process by the President and the PSC.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I also has a problem with Clause 6. (1) (e) on Disqulification. If his or her family member has a direct or indirect financial interest in the sector. This can be interpretated to mean that if an individual or his/her member of a family owns some shares in an a company in the sector then he/her does not qualify to be a commissioner. This needs to be qualified further. I therefore suggest that this clause be looked into and be amended to bar only individuls/owners of firms with controlling shares in any company in the sector. It can easily be used negatively if not carefully reconsidered.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Coming to the Clauses for today:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Clause 7. Terms of Office: There is some kind of overlap period that needs to be taken care of. The Clause can be amended so that only 50% of the commissioners retire at the expiry of their first term. The major challenge will be how to decide who to retire. May be the Commissioners can be allowed to vote on this amongst themselves. Alternatively it can be determined based on the represatives of particular interest, e.g. civil society, consumers. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I will comment on the other Clauses later.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Eng. Vitalis Olunga</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> <BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> volunga@yahoo.com<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Fri, February 18, 2011 5:09:59 AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> [kictanet] Day 5-6: Terms of Office, Removal from Office, Remuneration and Conflict of Interest<BR></FONT><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN>Dear Listers,</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN>Thank you for all of you who contributed to Day 4 discussions on </SPAN><SPAN>SECTION 5: CONSTITUTION AND APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TO COMMISSION and SECTION 6: DISQUALIFICATION. In summary, Muriuki recommended that the commissioners represent the supply side of the equation and there is a need for the demand side of the equation which includes civil society, professional societies etc. He also cautioned that while aspiring for suitable qualifications, expertise and experience, it is possible to get <SPAN> </SPAN>commissioners who have no interest in this sector. He suggested a framework which includes a full disclosure as a condition of appointment and resignation of active participation in the sector.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN>On the other hand, Walu argued that WHO gets appointed is not as critical as the representative structure of the commissioners, which needs to be redefined. This is in line with Matunda’s concern that there is a need to consider something about need for diverse backgrounds of commissioners with emphasis on technical business leadership, regulatory policy, etc.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN>Kay Kerubo does not like the idea of Appointees being endorsed by Parliament as it could lead to political interference. She suggested that the Chairperson should not have a longer term than other Commissioners, that term should be 3 years in her view. Jane Thuo supported this view adding that if the Chair has a longer term he/she will carry baggage to the next Board. She emphasized the need for a gender balance rather than the old 30%. Matunda suggested that <BR>Commissioners appointments should be staggered in such as way that there are<SPAN> </SPAN>"overlaps" to ensure continuity; for instance we can have a condition that not more than 50% of Commissioner terms can end at the same time.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN>Finally, Matunda said that the Cabinet secretary (not the President) should make appointments on recommendation of PSC. This would be in line with decentralization of power that has been at the core of the recently promulgated constitution.<BR><BR></SPAN><B><SPAN>DAY 5-6:</SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN>The discussion today will flow over to Monday 21 Feb. evening. Feel free to write over the weekend as well. It is drawn from p. 7-8 of the Draft Bill:</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN>SECTION 7: TERMS OF OFFICE</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN>SECTION 8: REMOVAL FROM OFFICE</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN>SECTION 10: REMUNERATION</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN>SECTION 12: CONFLICT OF INTEREST</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN>[Kindly show which Section you are discussing, it will help with feedback and input to the main Report] </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><B><SPAN>SECTION 7</SPAN></B><SPAN>:</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN>This includes standard issues like length of term for the Chair which is 5 years and 4 years for the Commissioners.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN>7(4) and (5): The point here is that a Commissioner can remain in Office at the expiry of his/her term until a successor appointed but this should not exceed 45 days. The same Commissioner can be re-appointed for one more term.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN>(6) The point in this sub-section is that a Commissioner serves in full-time capacity and not allowed to have any other employment</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><B><SPAN>Question: What do you think particularly of<SPAN> </SPAN>Section 7 (6) above? Your response to this has implications for 8 (1) g on removal from the office you break this clause.</SPAN></B><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><B><SPAN>SECTION 8</SPAN></B><SPAN>:</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN>There are 9 reasons for removal from Office and most are standard but I would like you to discuss the following:</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN>8. (1) (e). Incompetence;</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><B><SPAN>Question: Do you think this should be qualified further as it can be subject to abuse when so general? Or is it self-explanatory?</SPAN></B><SPAN> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><B><SPAN>What about 8. (1)(h)</SPAN></B><SPAN>: A commissioner may be removed from office on account of failure to disclose an interest in terms of section 12(2)(a) or voting or attendance at, or participation in, proceedings of the Commission while having an interest contemplated in section 12 (1);</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><B><SPAN>Question: Does this make perfect sense?</SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><B><SPAN>Do you think SECTION 12 on CONFLICT OF INTEREST should<SPAN> </SPAN>come earlier eg. after No. 7 TERMS OF OFFICE and before NO. 8 REMOVAL FROM OFFICE? or should it be before No. 8.? or is it in the right place?</SPAN></B><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><B><SPAN>SECTION 10</SPAN></B><SPAN>:</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN>REMUNERATION: Basically this has been left to the Minister with concurrence of the Minister of Finance.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><B><SPAN>Question: Your thoughts on this</SPAN></B><SPAN>?</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><B><SPAN>SECTION 12</SPAN></B><SPAN>: </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 17pt"><SPAN>While I am in this section, can I comment that the Table of Contents MUST synchronize with the main titles in the main body. For example the TOC reads ‘Conflicting Interests’ and the main body is ‘Conflict of Interest’….those can debatably be two different issues.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN>So we will discuss ‘CONFLICT OF INTEREST’:</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN>This includes the standard issues but section needs some editing; however there are two issues that may be open in discussion:</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN>12(1)(a) A Commissioner may not vote at, attend or in any the manner participate in, any meeting or hearing of the Commission, nor be present at the place were the meeting is held if --</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN>(b) in relation to an application relating to a licence, he or she or his or her family member is a director, member or business partner or associate of or has an interest in the business of the applicant or of any person who made representation in relation to the application; or……etc</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN>Question: Imagine that this was a determining question in an Exam, asking you to simplify this by first explaining what it means? Would you get the pass mark? Please try.</SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR><B><SPAN></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN>Sincerely,</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR><SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN>Nyaki</SPAN><B><SPAN><BR></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></div><br>
</body></html>