The Commissioner’s subtle and veiled extension, will professionalism improve?

Apr 13, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

On Wednesday 8 April, 2009 Assistant Commissioner Keith John proceeded on pre retirement leave from the Guyana Police Force. No strenuous effort was made to encourage this eminently qualified officer to remain and serve in an area which from all indications still requires the type of intellectual acumen he possesses.

His successor who may be basking in his new appointment surely will find it tremendously challenging to not only impress those whom he will interface and or interact with at those high level forums but may fall short with regards to the incisive analytical mind that Keith John possesses. Nevertheless surprises do lurk around the corner.

A few days ago the Commissioner of Police celebrated his 55th birthday and is still on the job .Rumour has it that he has benefited from a three-year extension, but the Commissioner denied this during a recent function.

We are fully cognizant that the office of the Commissioner of Police is a constitutional one . And so the officers and other ranks are kept in suspense, particularly those whose elevation are now in jeopardy. This writer was a victim of this situation.

Obviously no one is benefiting from this situation more except the Commissioner and if there is one single officer who is not apprehensive of this development in the sense that it affects his capacity for greater role and responsibility, that officer is certainly lacking in many respects.

Mr. Editor, Assistant Commissioner John is the holder of a Masters in law, Legal Education Certificate, Degree in Management and a Trained Teachers Certificate. At a time when the Guyana Police Force is in need of qualified and educated officers, note that there is a distinction between qualification and education, why is there no place for Keith John? If the reasoning is that his time is up then so too is the Commissioner.

Why is the President so keen on retaining the Commissioner at this juncture of the force when the issue of Police Reform is at hand?

This culture, a vicious and debilitating culture of officers remaining on the job after retirement particularly in substantive positions and of some taking pay for leave prior to retirement is so reprehensible for its notoriety because of the creation of a vehement circle which perpetuates negativity and stifles morale.

How long this uncomfortable and highly frustrating practice must be endured? Or is it that because of discipline and employment that it is assumed that all will be well and the affected officers will give of their best?

But there seems to be more to this. Recall the tenure of, especially, retired Commissioner L. Lewis. The fact that several of his top level officers were retiring in rapid succession significantly mitigated in favour of his retention.

But did the force grow and develop to the satisfaction of those in the body politic? Of course there were physical, systemic and systematic

changes but critically and importantly the human resource so integrally and intricately linked to success became disgruntled.

Many of them saw their opportunity go through the window.

Today we are about to evidence a very similar circumstance and strangely but not surprisingly an officer, along with others recently retired, who covertly and even overtly in my time, gave effect to his resentment of the situation then, now sees nothing ethically and morally wrong with continuing after retirement.

The concerted moves by the responsible parties who contrived by their manouvres to bring about the non promotion of competent, qualified and professional senior officers to the rank of Deputy Commissioner is definitely contributing to the nightmare currently in vogue in the force.

This has to do with the Commissioner and his style of micro managing of almost everything. No wonder he is constantly seen in the print and electronic media catching his rest. I am informed that hardly a thing moves or is done without the approval and maybe the direct involvement of the Commissioner. Is the force his personal property?

Except for successes in particular in the fight against crime, buttressed by the involvement of the army, does the current administrating of the force project a professional outlook?

Being on the outside, I am not so sure as the saying goes it is better to be inside looking out than outside looking in.

Will the experts on management help me to understand why very senior police functionaries are not allowed to discharge their responsibilities, hence being relegated to figureheads and officers very junior to them can be seen in conversation with and ever so often do report and communicate to and fro with the Commissioner?

For example, why is there a junior senior officer advising the Commissioner on financial matters when there is a senior officer in the capacity of force finance officer? Is the junior officer more competent, trusted and reliable? If the answer is yes, then deal with it.

Otherwise healthy human relations practices will decline and the disguised smiles will deceive.

There is the story of a superintendent and a party of policemen on instructions of a very senior officer with oversight of the tactical section of the force, entering a certain village on the East Coast of Demerara to do police work.

On their return, sometime after, the senior officer was admonished by the Commissioner in writing. He wanted to know on whose instruction the ranks went into that area. Is this not the stifling of knowledge and initiative? How can senior officers operate in such an environment?

These very senior officers are not permitted to engage their decision making capacity on matters within their purview and have to inform the Commissioner on routine matters before a decision is made.

Why is it that the Commissioner prefers to have very junior subordinate officers as close confidants when there are very senior officers in charge of strategic offices and major activities? Some of these young subordinates are quickly led to believe that they do have a lot of clout. How healthy is this situation? This is very similar to a former Top Cop style of conflict management with the exception that it has intensified.

Lest I forget can the Commissioner explain why three of his top officers have each been given an old motor car to use without a driver while a retired officer is benefiting from a brand new Mark 2 with a driver?

My information is that the Commissioner has, apart from his personal vehicles, a fleet of eight other new vehicles and you know what? The Commissioner controls the keys to these vehicles.

Mr Editor, no wonder the issues of trust, respect and suspicion continue to plague the relationship between the police and the public.

If they significantly manifest themselves amongst the top management officers with the manner in which things are done, can the force grow and develop internally in any positive way? No wonder some officers are just waiting to exit.

W. L. George

---

---