Anand Goolsarran accuses Nigel Hinds of attacking him

Aug 08, 2016 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter from Mr. Nigel Hinds that was carried in your last Saturday’s edition of your newspaper. In that letter, he asserted that I should not be a columnist for the Stabroek News because I did work for the Government. He also commented on the contents on one of my recent columns as it relates to the appointment of Mr. Statia as Commissioner-General of the GRA.
This is not the first time that Mr. Hinds took to the letters’ column attacking me. I must recall his blistering attack when I spoke out against the appointment Mr. Brian Tiwari as Ministerial Advisor on Business. I do not wish to reciprocate by responding to Mr. Hinds’s letter in like tone and to engage in a personal attack on a colleague of the profession. I have therefore decided to offer the following clarifications in the humblest of tone:
1. I honestly have no objections to Mr. Statia being appointed Commissioner-General. In fact, in my column I did congratulate him. I truly believe that if the toss up was between Mr. Statia and the Canadian-based Guyanese, Mr. Statia would have prevailed.
2. What I was concerned about was the process that was used in making the selection. The way the job requirements as advertised were formulated, only Mr. Statia would have met the requirements of 15 years’ experience in customs and tax administration, with a minimum of eight years being at an executive management level. There was no consideration of external candidates with comparable experience.  As an analogy, if a government agency advertises to purchase a refrigerator and you design the specifications so that only the Phillips brand meets the specifications, in procurement terms, it is a form of “bid rigging”. Standard procurement practices dictate that specifications must be generic in nature, and not biased to suit a particular supplier. I am sure Mr. Hinds, as a chartered accountant, would agree to this.
3. My understanding is that three persons were interviewed for the job, including Mr. Statia and the Canadian-based Guyanese. Two days later, in an incredible twist of things, the Board announced publicly that no suitable candidate was found! It then proceeded to re-advertise for the position. At the same time, negotiations were held with Mr. Statia who eventually agreed to the remuneration package that his predecessor was getting. As a result, the advertisement was recalled and Mr. Statia was appointed.
4. If the interview panel was unable to accede to the demands of the top candidate, the next best candidate should have been offered the position. Again, in procurement terms, you simply cannot negotiate with bidders. In the case of consulting services, negotiation is only permitted when the selection is made, not before. I believe that the selection panel in retrospect would have realised that it erred in this regard.
5. As regards whether being a columnist presents a conflict of interest situation in view of the fact that I had undertaken four forensic audits at a cost of $7.2 million (and not $40 million as one mischievous letter-writer boldly asserted), I believe that the reverse is the case. I would call it “compatibility of interest” or “complementarity of interest”. By that I mean my “Accountability Watch” column, which focuses on good governance, transparency and accountability, is similar in objectives to those of the forensic audits that I had carried out. In other words, there was goal congruence, not conflict of interest. Whenever one speaks of conflict of interest, one needs to ask the question: what’s the risk?; or invoke the “so what” question.
7. Readers should note that I started the “Accountability Column” in the Stabroek News in 2012. For three years, I gave voluntary service and was not in gainful employment. When there was a change in Administration in May 2015, I reluctantly agreed to undertake the four audits referred to above while continuing to write my weekly column. Today, I continue to give pro bono service whenever I am called upon to do so. Should I give up writing because I undertook these audits and continue to offer pro bono services?
8. Heaven forbid, if I have the choice of either doing an assignment for the Government or of continuing with my column, I would have no hesitation than to choose the latter because of my passion and love for research and writing.
On the other hand, if I choose to be in full-time employment with the Government, and to the extent that maintaining my column conflicts with my role in such employment, then I will do the honourable, and morally and ethically right thing.
I will discontinue my column.  That time is yet to come as I sense no calling in this direction. If and when that happens, perhaps I may retreat from public life and dwell in the realms of spirituality.
Anand Goolsarran

---

---