Is the cooperative movement in Guyana dying?

Apr 29, 2012 News

---

 

–          A two-part interview with Patrick Mentore, Community Advocate

 

Paradise Housing Scheme

 

 

By Dale Andrews

 

After several years, the cooperative movement in Guyana has come under renewed focus, with new Labour

Minister Dr. Nanda Kishore Gopaul pledging to revamp the sector with a view to returning it to its viable state.

Within the past few weeks, a few cooperative societies has been under the radar.

The Guyana Defence Force Co-op Society is facing financial difficulties, and there have been challenges to the organizational structure and running of the Paradise Multi-Purpose Coop Society (PMCS) just to name a few.

Add that to the collapse of a few others, with persons losing significant sums of money, the situation is not too rosy for the sector under which Guyana was supposed to develop.

In an effort to encourage debate, this newspaper sat down with Patrick Mentore, who can in some ways be considered an advocate for the movement, to gain a better perspective on cooperatives in Guyana.

 

Kaieteur News (KN): We have been following your comments and suggestions in our letter columns, particularly as they relate to the Paradise Multi-Purpose Cooperative Society of which you are a member.  Tell us why this high level of interest or – if you may, this passionate advocacy for community improvement or development in the Paradise Housing Scheme?

Patrick Mentore (PM): It is interesting that you describe my efforts as passionate, but I have been a member of the PMCS since 1995; the Society was registered on April 25, 1995.  However during the past several months, I became acutely aware of the need for a community meeting place as evidenced by the large number of young children playing on the roadways; the apparent aimlessness and – I dare say apathy of the youths; and the absence of programmes aimed at addressing the social and other needs of young and old alike.  This feeling was bolstered by an initiative aimed at community development and cooperation which was sponsored jointly by the Ministry of Local Government and UNDP.

I guess you can say that I am guilty of ignoring these manifestations of a community without direction, except to say that I assumed that all was well and that the well-being of the community was a priority.  Sad to say on that count I have been proven wrong.

KN: You have in your letters pointed to mismanagement of the Society’s affairs.  Would you care to elaborate?

PM: The PMCS emerged through the efforts of one Dazzell, and had as its registered address Lot 8 Paradise, East Coast Demerara.  It is perhaps noteworthy that early allegations of fiscal impropriety and mismanagement led to the emergence of several factions which assumed arbitrary control over the area governed by the PMCS.  In fact these several factions sometimes operated simultaneously, resulting in a “Wild West” situation which has not been totally eradicated to this day.  I know of at least one instance where a member died of a heart attack after being confronted by another “owner” of the land and building (under construction) that he had already paid for from a loan secured from the Dependant’s Pension Fund.  The strident calls for government intervention by a few of the more vocal members resulted in the Society attracting the attention of the Chief Cooperatives Development Officer (CCDO), Kareem Abdul Jabar, under the Cooperatives Societies Regulations Section 56 (2) during 2003.  It is perhaps instructive that among the said few are those who now would accept change for nothing.

KN: Recently there have been claims of irregularities in the conduct of business of several cooperative and friendly societies.  In this regard, what if anything has the CCDO-imposed PMCS management arrangement, albeit since 2003, achieved?

PM: In all fairness, persons have been able to secure their land titles; but not before being forced into paying off their indebtedness to the Society which is also the subject of some major disagreements, since it is claimed that an increase from $43,500 to $143,500 inclusive of member shares and contribution for infrastructure works, was arbitrary and not sanctioned by the general membership.

I am subject to correction, but I am unaware if minutes exist of the meeting where that position was proposed and resolved by way of voting.  I have taken a very public position that not very many members can fork over the sum demanded before their land titles can be processed.

I am on record as suggesting that the Society which is more than one individual, including even the CCDO, should be prepared to assist its members to the point where they can secure loans from financial institutions; these suggestions have largely fallen on deaf ears.

As a matter of fact at a Special General Meeting held on March 18, 2012, the Minister of Labour, Dr. Nanda Gopaul offered his personal assistance to members desirous of going the mortgage route. I am not sure if his offer has been disseminated to members or if it has been taken up.  The main road has been resurfaced and patched since 2006 and secondary roads extending from First Street to Thirteenth Street can now accommodate light vehicular traffic.

It should be said that a few streets were constructed through private contacts.  Another feature has been the installation of street lights through the finances provided by residents, outside of the sum paid for shares and infrastructure, and funds from the Society’s accounts.  One concern I have expressed is that we, the members, have no guarantee of value received for money since there has been no prior public information on projects where the expertise of residents with technical know-how could be tapped into.

KN: Surely this cannot be so difficult to ascertain since the Society would have been having regularly scheduled meetings to update the membership in addition to annual general meetings.  Isn’t that so?

PM: Again I am subject to correction, but I am not aware of an annual general meeting by the PMCS from 2004 to date.  What I can most definitely say is that the CCDO called a meeting which was held on Sunday October 1, 2011, where he admitted that although he had intended to call a meeting at some point, my public comments made it imperative that a meeting be held.

However, an audited financial report was not presented as required by Section 58 of the CRS, neither was there information shared with regard to Section 59 of the CRS, which speaks of contributions to the Audit and Supervision Fund – there is no idea of the share capital value, except a reference to a bank balance of just over six million dollars.  But, and I think that this is an important point, meetings in the past have been characterized by a degeneration into acrimony, with allegations and counter allegations which have only served to divide the people.  I believe that this divisiveness, with no discernible effort at reconciliation by the governing body, permitted many undesirable things to slip through the cracks unnoticed.

KN: So from your vantage point, it seems as if the affairs of the PMCS have not been conducted according to the strict requirements of the CRS.  Could it be that under Section 56 (2), which you cited previously, the Society was not bound by those regulations?

PM: I hesitate to accept that the drafters of those regulations intended for any person or persons mandated to manage any cooperative society under Section 56(2) to perform without adherence to the basic principles of a cooperative society over a protracted period of in excess of eight years, and with no regard to the rules for that particular Society, in this case the PMCS.

While we are on that aspect, at the meeting on March 18 this year, the Minister of Labour gave his commitment for a forensic audit of the PMCS by a reputable company.  It would be interesting to see the terms of reference for that audit.

KN:  What to your mind should the terms of reference for a comprehensive audit exercise examine?  What would be among the elements you would look at if you were to arrive at an opinion on the PMCS state of affairs?

PM: I have no pretensions to in-depth accounting or auditing knowledge, but I will try to answer your question if we are talking of determining the accountability and transparency of the way things were being done over the years.

In addition to financial records, including statements of affairs (income, expenditure, assets and liabilities) several documents would have to be presented including (i) the Society’s rules and all amendments; (ii) the Cooperative Societies Act and Regulations Chapter 88:01; (iii) minutes of all meetings of the Society; (iv) a verifiable register of members (their addresses, date of registration of membership, and status of land whether land is titled or occupied); (v) list of persons assigned to manage the affairs of the Society; (vi) minutes of all meetings of management; (vii) a register showing the location of all the Society’s properties; (viii) an inventory of all other assets of the Society and their location; (ix) transfers of house lots and shares as sanctioned by the Society; and (x) membership applications.

If it exists a copy of the Society’s business plan should be presented.

(to be continued next week)

---

---