The ERC’s Report is devastating and humiliating for GECOM

Mar 22, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

The ERC’s Report on hiring practice is devastating and humiliating for GECOM. Although the ERC did not explicitly said it, their description of the behaviour of GECOM’s high officials exposes a scandalous, shameful, disgraceful example of political malfeasance. Clearly, GECOM had something very sinister to hide. They stonewalled the ERC by a total refusal to submit evidence. Their non-cooperation was nothing but an inability to defend themselves from the charge of Commissioner Robeson Benn that GECOM is practicing bias and discrimination in its hiring practice.
One thing is clear, senior officials of GECOM violated the law – cooperation with the ERC is not an option, it is required under the law. Failure to meet with the ERC and failure to submit documents requested by the ERC is unlawful. ERC is a constitutional, statutory body and it is not, never was envisaged to be, another talk shop. It is a body with powers to reprimand. GECOM’s officials must be charged for not complying with the ERC’s requests for interview and for submission of documents.
Whether people are hired or not hired because of their ethnicity or because of their perceived political belief, it is equally reprehensible and it is unlawful. In this context, therefore, was Vishnu Persaud denied the job of Deputy Chief Elections Officer for either of these or any other reason? The ERC report is unequivocal – Mr. Persaud’s non-renewal of his contract or his non-hiring had nothing to do with his qualifications, his experience, his previous performance at GECOM, particularly in the relevant job or his behaviour and inter-personal relationships.
Even as GECOM abrogates the constitution and refuses to prepare for elections as mandated by the constitution, it is caught red-handed in the scandal of bias and discrimination. Even as the ERC tried its best to be generous and not ascribe ulterior, ugly motives on GECOM’s part, GECOM is guilty of discrimination and bias.
The facts are incontrovertible. GECOM rejected the most qualified, most experienced and the highest-scoring, highest-ranking candidate for the position of Deputy Chief Elections Officer.
GECOM never had a problem with Persaud’s previous performance as the PRO and as the Deputy Chief Elections Officer. The ERC Report stated as follows: “Dr. Surujbally was quite vocal. He described Mr. Persaud’s performance as PRO and as DCEO as very good. Persaud “held the fort as CEO on several occasions” and was “an excellent scribe for the commission for 12 years. Further, apart from his very good work-related performances, Persaud was described “as being of good character, who employed tact, prudence, wisdom and honesty” in the discharge of his duties. Dr. Surujbally posited that Persaud has “vast institutional knowledge and memory” of the works of the commission and could vouch for his academic qualifications.”
But the ERC report did not only provide the exact words of Surujbally praising Persaud’s work, the report cited the testimony of Keith Lowenfield, the present CEO: “In summary, the CEO described Persaud in good terms, good, interpersonal relationship, good work performances and job in his capacity as DCEO and undertook varied responsibilities associated with other jobs. The CEO concurred to the expression by the former Chairman that Persaud was “his best man, bright young fellow, best man for the company” and “yes, best for the benefit of the agency”.
In spite of his qualifications and experience and his excellent job appraisals, vouched for by Persaud’s senior bosses, GECOM , instead, appointed a candidate that had no experience in elections. The rejected candidate happens to be an Indo-Guyanese and he has had no history of being close to any political party. The appointed candidate happens to be an Afro-Guyanese and is known to be closely-associated with the PNC.
So why did GECOM choose that candidate over Vishnu Persaud? Some say, it is because of politics, others say it is because of race. Whichever it is, each as equally a potent poison pill, each is equally reprehensible and, in Guyana, either one is a crime.
The ERC Report chooses to leave the conclusion up to people. But the report is filled with disgusting, scandalous, shameful examples of misbehaviour and political malfeasance by GECOM. One of the clear messages in the ERC Report is the unequivocal non-cooperation by senior GECOM officials.
The Chairman of GECOM promised to address concerns and bring documentation to a meeting with GECOM. He never showed up and he never delivered most of these important documents. The person who was appointed as Deputy Chief Elections Officer, never showed up for an appointment with the ERC. Importantly, the Human Resources Director refused to meet with the ERC.
Not only did these officers not show up, they promised to deliver documents and never did. In addition, to these officers not submitting documents, the government commissioners made spurious allegations about the qualifications and job performance of Mr. Persaud without any documentation of their claims. They promised they would submit the documentation. The ERC never received those documents.
The fact is, even if the ERC did not feel inclined to state the obvious, GECOM discriminated blatantly against Persaud. GECOM can pick its poison pill – race or politics – either way it is guilty of bias and discrimination – and must be held accountable.

Dr. Leslie Ramsammy

---

---