Lindeners’ concern about LEAP’s continuity

Nov 22, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I saw my colleagues lamenting about LEAP’s continuity and whither goeth the programme after December 31, 2009.
I support their positions unequivocally, albeit with mixed emotions. The main reason for this physical and probably psychotic state is the fact that several months now I have been focusing on these issues like a lone ranger. It has come to my hearing that persons in officialdom have a dislike for persons raising these thorny issues and so I hear things like “Wha you do so and so, mek deh hate you with a passion.” As a result I have acquired the status of the community‘s Bette noir.
An editor of one of the independent dailies asked me if I wanted to retract a story. I asked him if he was serious because the positions I gave are very consistent and reflect the truth. He was confronted very angrily by a power broker, for carrying a story on a major facility in the town.
The issues raised by my comrades from the Chamber of Commerce are some which I have dealt with publicly, being critical and suggesting early intervention where necessary.
In December 2007, I wrote the International Project Manager (IPM) expressing alarm at the apparent lack of movement towards a smooth transition to a successor entity. There were budgeted funds for this transition along with a mid-term review which was conducted by two eminent gentlemen from Europe. The IPM replied indicating that a review was at hand and that movement on the matter was imminent. I did not get a copy of the findings of the retreat held at Splashmins and facilitated by Sandra V. Jones and Associates, but I was advised that very pertinent decisions on continuity were agreed on. Yet there was no apparent movement on the matter in 2008.
There have been three faces in the office of the International Business Advice expert who was charged with the responsibility for charting the course for the successor organ. Mr. Torsten Striepke left hurriedly after suffering a medical condition that required immediate expert help not available in Guyana. Another gentleman was hired and after a few hours on the job he returned to his homeland. Mr. Wofgang Klesse, a very affable man spent one year and left without accomplishing this seemingly thorny mission. I should mention that another individual from Holland came and spent a few weeks trying to push the process along.
The programme (LEAP) was expected to finish its core activities on December 31, 2008 and wrapping up fully by June 30, 2009. On March 30, 2009 we were invited to an Advisory Group meeting where Mr. Tarachard Balgobin stated that Cabinet approved the establishment of a successor entity. It was stated that after this entity was set up the lending operation (LEAF) would restart within one month. No doubt those of us in the community with responsibility for development (RDC, M&TC, LCICD) were goaded into telling the press corp. that “salvation was at hand”, just be a little more patient.
Since that meeting we have advanced in time by eight months and this relatively simple and straightforward matter of consequence to the community’s economic wellbeing has not been given the attention and recognition it deserves. LEAP will end next month after a one year extension and this key component of the programme has not been achieved. Moreover the handing over and other settling in issues cannot be done with the current LEAP team because most persons have been laid off from the team of more than 25 persons previously employed by the entity. I have seen a document which was hinting at NICIL taking over the assets of LEAP after December 31, 2009. I will watch to see “what’s up with that”. En passant, I have expressed major reservations about the ability of the successor entity to stand on its own feet with the proposed organisational management.
I went this far with explanation to say to residents that our reticence on these issues is construed either as weakness or indifference which permits more travesties. Why we were not vigilant on this matter over the past two years when the ‘ever-vigilant community activists’ were in charge of the chamber?
Did they not see these matters as important to the community’s business development? When the sign boards were destroyed just three of us made public statements.
Now the hammer is about to fall on some other structures and the community is getting very hot.
This could have been avoided if a principled stand was taken and regardless of condition and how affected people should stand firmly on these matters.
Recently, the Prime Minister’s proposal for a $200 million stimulus package for the Linden, Ituni and Kwakwani communities to repair the road, using Linmine Secretariat as the executing agency, was taken away most brutally. To add insult to injury, no deliberate effort was made to employ persons from these communities in an effort to appease. Mr. Mortimer Mingo and I wrote the Prime Minister on the matter and after not getting a response, calls were made to his office. We were advised that the letter was forwarded to the Minister responsible for Roads and the Cabinet Secretary. Readers can make their own deductions from this. Again, we highlighted the issue, but the matter is left for another travesty to supersede it.
Orrin Gordon

---

---