The big GECOM cover-up

Jul 21, 2013 Features / Columnists, My Column

So many things grabbed my attention toward the end of the week just past that at one stage I thought that I would refrain from writing about the many things that really bothered me. Instead, I thought that I would just do something that would make people smile and reflect on their youthful days.
And I actually started a few lines until I realized that I should look at the things that actually made people feel that an injustice had been done to someone when in fact this was never the case. Of course on this issue, there were people who said to me that I could end up in court.
I have been living in this country all my life and I know what people with worth do whenever their closets are exposed. They run to the courts and try to hide. I have been a victim of that for so many times that it has become routine and one more lawsuit would not hurt. The sad part of this is that I can never get the courts to grant me justice when people make frivolous claims in pursuit of a protected identity.
I happened upon some information that made me realize that sometimes people always try to protect the organization at all costs, even if it means covering up some of the ills that once exposed, would threaten the very organization.
A member of the Guyana Elections Commission actually wrote, “It is quite difficult, displeasing and even odious to be placed in a position of having to make a decision about renewing Mr (Gocool) Boodoo’s contract…because we have gone through thick and thin together, and I have had to defend him sometimes against my better judgement.”
This commissioner continued, “The pre-eminent focus is to dispassionately protect GECOM’s achievements from those who would attempt to pull them down, and to ensure that our image cannot be besmirched.”
But while this was happening the nation was led to believe that the very GECOM was fair, transparent and above reproach, when this was not the case. As a reporter, I found it extremely important to get information about many things pertaining to Guyana’s electoral practices. To a man, the commissioners would simply say that my questions should be directed to the commission.
At the same time the commission was not prone to meeting with the press. Media conferences were only called in the run-up to elections. So it was that when Mr Boodoo’s contract came up for renewal, the media was not aware of all the things that Mr Boodoo had done to place a wedge between himself and the rest of the commission.
I was not alone. When someone asked Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon about the decision not to renew Mr Boodoo’s contract, the man gave an answer that Mr Boodoo was a victim of some harsh commissioners and an equally harsh Commission chairman.
He was unaware that between 2002 when Mr Boodoo became Chief Elections Officer and April 30, 2013, that he had so many things that he could have been in jail. One Commissioner directed me to the minutes of meetings, knowing that the only way I could get my hands on any of the minutes was if a mole slipped me a copy.
But he did say that there was the blatant misuse of funds to purchase vehicles for the 2006 elections. Two Commissioners, one of whom has since died, relayed shock at their findings to the Commission. He spoke of the issue of toners for printing. He said that Boodoo caused the commission to believe that these would cost many millions of dollars when it turned out that they cost a mere $2 million.
GECOM opted to block the high charging company and actually took a documented decision. Yet when it was time to purchase toners, the very company using a different name was recommended—a fact that was brought to Boodoo’s attention. Who recommended the company?
“There are other expenditures by Boodoo that besmirch the image of GECOM. There were the trips with his team members to out of town offices who would then cross the borders to enjoy weekends.
It boggles the mind that these things were kept quite ostensibly to protect the image of the Commission. A parent covering the ills of a child is surely not doing the child or the household any good. Businesses have been known to take staff members to court without any worry about the image. Others have sacked people and still others have not hesitated to talk about the recalcitrant staff member.
I was shocked when I learnt that Boodoo was disrespectful to the Commission, that he turned up to commission meetings under the influence and was unable to contribute, and that he covered up serious incidents such as repairing a vehicle that got into an accident during a jaunt and not informing the commission.
One joke was that when someone at the commission spoke about his drinking he retorted that he could hold his liquor.
Well the time has come when despite all the support he got, and all the fights he fought, he could no longer hold on to his job. The Commission must still tell me why the big cover-up until the Vincent Alexander letter revealed that all was not well.