A well managed and validated ERC is much needed

Mar 05, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I was reading all along the ERC/Kissoon et.al claims and counterclaims on legitimacy and relevance to the current socio-cultural and economic scenario in Guyana. On my part I have had some interactions with the body and feel that a well managed and validated ERC is much needed in Guyana.
I would elaborate on this question in another article but the thrust of this short letter is to give or add a perspective that seems to be eluding the performers in the ERC.
First my view from all that has gone on and the way business is conducted by the Commission allow for Bishop Edghill to attract controversy on himself and therefore must bear that cross. He is seen as the ERC’s ever-present talisman which may not necessarily be the best position to find oneself in as chairman of such an organisation, which attracts attention and regular battering.
This is natural because perceptions are very strong and many times when the rulings go against the perceived victims; there will be arguments about the ‘effectiveness’ of the organisation. However, sound and independent assessments cannot be beaten and in those circumstances one’s conscience is clear and eventually respect and validation will come.
I was invited to an ERC meeting on June 30, 2009 at the EBECC in Linden and my brother in Local Government, the Regional Chairman had long expressed his misgivings of the workings of the ERC; in particular on the role the ERC played in a dispute at Rockstone, which is still festering. Leading up to the forum, a young worker at the ERC, Ms. Frorero kept constant contact and was able to bring out many young people from the far flung areas of the region.
The Bishop in his now customary role was in the forefront of the facilitation with the showing of a film followed by analysis of the film, discussion session, role play and then an agreement with the participants. Several issues came out from the forum, which were affecting the riverain communities that were primarily Amerindian in demography. Many of their worries include joblessness, truancy, drugs, teenage pregnancy, lack of infrastructure, distance to travel to school, poverty, lack of teachers and medical facilities among several others.
In Linden the young people spoke about some of the same issues from Region Ten, but included the lone TV Station and the persistent and prevalent NCN.
Having given everyone an opportunity to speak I took the microphone and laid a charge of discrimination on my community and the resultant effect on the persistence of poverty. I was referring to the huge level of resources purportedly spent in and on Region Ten, but little direct and sincere effort made to ensure that a larger percentage of the fund flow stays in the community.
I pointed out at that time that I did a study over the previous five years (including LEAP) and out of $5.4 billion in projects, less than 0.l% came by way of contracts and wages to Linden residents, businesses or contractors. We keep talking about improving capacity and had a seminar or two sponsored by LEAP over the years, but the institutional mechanisms are stacked against the emergence and proliferation of this factor and class within the Region. To be honest those representing the 0.1% appeared more as tokenism.
The groups at the session came up with a suggestion of a pact which was agreed and signed to by the major players. That position was that after compiling the findings from the session the ERC will submit the information for perusal to the various communities/constituencies and these will be responsible for selecting one or two persons to represent them at a specially arranged confab to discuss how we can and find accommodation for the various concerns expressed. Remember, this was expected one month after; around the end of July 2009.
Philip Bynoe was present at the forum and participated in our sub-group which had to enact a scenario of moving from a contentious issue to one of agreements and cohesion among differing cultural and religious persuasions in a diverse community.
A few days after this session and my complaint, I was contacted by an officer from the ERC and she informed me that Mrs. Hawke, an Attorney-At-Law will take my complaint and follow up on the issue in Linden. I gave Mrs. Hawke my submission along with documents to verify my contention. Mrs. Hawke met with Regional Chairman and Regional Executive Officer to discuss my complaint. A report was presented to the ERC. I have not had a response to my complaint to date.
Fast forward to somewhere around mid-2010, when Bishop Edghill came again at the LEN building with a smaller grouping of residents of Region Ten. On this occasion residents were told that the ERC was disappointed with the amount of submissions made to Mrs. Hawke. Residents were also told that the ERC was in existence for sometime doing its work and it was now time to evaluate its work so that it can improve on its delivery. As such it made sense to come to the people to get their impression of its work. A consultant, Mr. Lawrence Latchmansingh was employed as consultant to conduct a candid assessment of residents’ views of the ERC. A few weeks after a session will be held in Georgetown to validate the findings from the various sessions across Guyana. My understanding then was that this session would have established commonalities in the findings and ensure that the ERC got the best of the peoples’ observation of its work and try to improve on its deliverability.
In responding to the Bishop’s opening salvos I told him that people who feel that their concerns were not going to be addressed in a timely and proper fashion will not make the time to register complaints. I reminded him of his pact with the over 300 residents at the EBECC and the submission of the findings one month after which was not honoured. Then I told him I am still awaiting the report of my allegations.
He said Mrs. Hawke was not very well after collecting the complaints from Linden and this delayed the drafting of the report. However, the draft was finally submitted and I will receive my response soon.
A week or two after dithering on whether it was sensible to attend the session at the Liliendaal Convention Centre based on what I was gathering and discerning as a pattern, I attended the meeting at the Conventional Centre and followed all the arguments and by-plays.
When the meeting started the goodly Bishop and two Commissioners were present. For sometime now I have been observing just Bishop Edghill, Uncle John Willems and Mr. Carvil Duncan attending these sessions. About five years ago when the Commission came to Linden at the Constabulary Hall for a meeting I recalled seeing a larger contingent of the Commissioners including Mr. Andrew Garnett. So there has been some truncation of the Commission over time and this was noticeable at this meeting.
On the issue of non-submission of the report to stakeholders I take serious umbrage to that fact. Remember our views were solicited to help make the work of the Commission relevant and effective. To consider the document as internal I would not have participated since it meant that the ERC did not need us anyway and could have gone ahead and done its thing. The whole activity gave the impression that it was a charade to take submissions from around the country and so one has to question these donor agencies on what they are giving out money to do.
I hope the UNDP understands that many of us see this secret report as an affront to our basic intelligence. Do not give such money away in our name and development! We are enamoured by these stunts! Give the money in another name but not social cohesion if the document is considered internal.
In conclusion, for me the repeated non-submission of findings continues hence my initial position that Bishop Edghill attracts these negative positions on himself as chairman of the organisation. However, what was presented to us by Mr. Latchmansingh was an excellent display of his facilitation skills in which he was able to capture the essence of our communities’ positions on the work of the ERC. Only ask the redoubtable Ms. Mary from Bartica. (Sorry, Ms. Mary, I could not remember your surname since I did not get a copy of the findings from the session for my records, but you were a forceful and formidable participant at the session, coming just after Mr. Kissoon(in jest)).
Orrin Gordon

---

---