The police force must understand that criticism helps

Feb 18, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I make reference to my letter in your newspaper of February 16, 2017 under the title, “”I have experienced “ghosting” in the police force.” Please allow for a continuation of my reply to the PRO of the police force by way of this second letter Those senior officers who crafted the response for the PRO were not on our senior management team when “ghosting” came to light so they may not have first hand information of what was reported.
By the way the recent year end check of the police statistics discovered that divisions A and C that were showing a large percent of decrease in reports of certain serious crimes had an increase instead. I do not know if that was “ghosting.” It is now a well kept secret. They may be a denial. Perhaps it may be a case of simple arithmetic. Some persons did not add or subtract correctly. I am sure that it was not a case for the Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate.
I mentioned about serious communication issues and concerns at the apex of the management of the GPF. The PRO wrote about the Performance Group Meetings, the agenda and other irrelevant issues. It is sad to say that the communication between the number one and two men in the force is extremely strained if not acrimonious. Apart from group meetings, the communication is in writing.
The other channels of communication are trickling if not blocked. There are some serious barriers to communication between the two men which are not yet for public consumption.  Without effective communication, people do not know what is expected of them or how well they are doing. The situation is causing some quiet divisions among the senior members of the force. Cracks are emerging.  Some explained to me that at meetings they are fearful to make contributions for fear of being accused of taking sides.
What does the PRO mean when he wrote, “ The fact is that the force in contemporary times underwent a lot of reforms in its management that makes it completely different from when Mr. Conway served. “ Where is the reform? The basic structure of the force remains the same as when I served. There was no “flatting” of the structure. The reporting system was changed a bit. They still have Annual Officers’ meetings. The police force is still a member of the Joint Services. Is changing the name of a meeting or events reform? Let us know of any substantial reform as compared to when I was serving at a senior level.
Through the PRO we now know that the mission statement was crafted by United Kingdom consultants and implanted in the Strategic Management Department. Nothing was mentioned about consultation. No wonder it is greatly flawed. It states in part; “To achieve this, we will work in partnership with communities, public agencies and private bodies to enhance and support an environment where all people are preventing crime and building a safer and secure Guyana.”
All people are preventing crime and building a safer Guyana. It is unrealistic. It is not achievable. All cannot be involved in preventing crime and building a safer Guyana. The PRO is very silent on the contents of the mission statement.
I have nothing but good will for the GPF. I want the police to deliver the highest quality of service to the citizens they swore to serve and protect. I praise them when they do well. I support and defend them on numerous occasions. I have been accused of being pro police. That is what I am. Whenever the police walk off the plank of professionalism I attempt to bring them back on the professional plank through my writings. Perhaps, that is the issue that a few members of the force do not like.
The studies that I quoted from in my original letter are international best practices. They are relevant to the Guyana Police Force and fit nicely into the Guyanese culture. By the way, did the police considered to what extent studies of crime in developing countries and the culture of the people in those countries are common and different from the culture of Guyanese before they sent 186 members of the force on overseas training, or accepted the international training conducted locally for 405 ranks? That was the question asked of me by the PRO when I quoted from the works of various overseas law enforcement experts.
The PRO suggests that I positively expend my energies in conducting surveys to determine citizens’ approval or disapproval of the performance of the police. Let me be clear; I do not have the time nor competence to do such surveys. If I do, PRO may again accuse me of cutting and pasting as he did in response to my letter to the editors.  Instead of being reactive the PRO can be proactive by conducting some surveys on the public’s perception on the performance of the police.
Clinton Conway
Assistant Commissioner of Police
(Retired)

---

---