Are Alexander’s raves and rants related to something other than academic qualifications?

Dec 17, 2021 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

Kaieteur News – Reference is made to critical remarks made about my commentary on Vishnu Persaud (Dec. 12) in the epistle (Dec. 15) of Vincent Alexander attacking the Chair of GECOM for her vote hiring Persaud as CEO of the body. I played no role in the selection process. I did not support or tout for any applicant. I merely cheered the appointment pointing out that he is amply qualified for the position given his experience and academic qualifications. GECOM determined that he was more qualified and better suited for the job and I praised his appointment given that GECOM has been without a CEO for several months with its work stymied during that period. Filling the vacancy was critically needed and it does not matter to me who has been hired for the position. The work (registration of new voters, giving out IDs, updating of electoral list, preparing for local elections, etc.) of GECOM needs to go on.
Attacking the Chair is not the way to prove that Jamaican Leslie Howard is more qualified than Guyanese Mr. Vishnu Persaud. Respecting and accepting the democratic process (vote of the Chair and 4 is greater than 3) is of paramount importance more than any other factor as long as the process has not been compromised.
It is strange that Mr. Alexander now speaks of GECOM’s decisions on appointments. He did not query the appointment of Keith Lowenfield by the then Chair or the Mingo bogus results of the country’s 2020 polls. When Lowenfield was CEO, the PNC Commissioners did not question or challenge the functioning of GECOM and the decisions of then Chair James Patterson, who was illegally and unconstitutionally appointed to that position. And Mr. Alexander knew of those aberration.
GECOM is an independent constitutional agency. It made a decision (to hire Vishnu Persaud) after following the correct protocols. The fact that Mr. Alexander’s candidate was not appointed is no excuse to rant and rave. There is only one position for CEO. And GECOM appointed Vishnu to that position. The Chair is a very nice and accomplished woman and she has taken much time to deliberate on election related matters to ensure that decisions are in accordance with the law and rules of reason. No one questions Mr. Alexander’s vote for his Jamaican candidate. Why should he arrogate and also demean the right of the GECOM’s Chair?
Mr. Alexander queried Persaud’s academic qualification. He contends that Persaud is less (not) qualified and even lacks the criteria (requisite academics and experience, etc.) for the position. I should note that on the issue of qualification and experience, the high court awarded some $4.5M in damages to Persaud against Alexander and others (in Chronicle newspaper) who questioned and denigrate his qualifications when he sought the DCEO position. The case spoke to Persaud’s qualification. The court’s ruling spoke volumes – clearly rejecting Alexander‘s position on qualifications.
The Ethnic Relations Commission addressed the discriminatory way by which Mr. Alexander and his colleagues bypassed Persaud for one of their party’s supporters. The then Chairman of GECOM, Judge James Patterson, made a decision to hire Myers even before a report was submitted on Persaud’s qualification. The Ethnic Relations Commission also condemned the non-appointment of Persaud saying it was racially biased. Persaud scored the highest on the selection criteria for DCEO. The ERC concluded that Perasud suffered an injustice. Mr. Alexander voted against him in favour of a less qualified person in a 4-3 decision. Chair James Patterson, who was illegally appointed, cast the tie break (and 3-3 vote) in favour of Myers.
Alexander would have known that Patterson should not have been chosen for Chair because he was not nominated by the Opposition Leader as required by the constitution; instead he did not speak out against that appointment. Patterson, who never interviewed Persaud for the position, was reported in the media as saying that Persaud had “shifty eyes” when asked why he did not select him.
Alexander argues that his (and the PNC favoured) candidate Leslie Howard has higher qualifications than Persaud with the former having two MAs. The evaluation criteria for the position did not say that a candidate having higher academic qualifications would be preferred or would receive ‘extra points’ in the assessment (evaluation) of the candidates. I have multiple PhDs and MAs but limited experience for the position. Does that mean that had I applied, I would have preference (automatically selected) over those without equivalent academic certificates?
The selection criteria did not make mention of grades; it is not mentioned that a person with higher grades (higher degree) would be more qualified and would have preference over someone with a degree of lower grade. And grades are immaterial as long as the candidates have equivalent or requisite qualification. Thus, whether one has a higher or lower degree is not necessarily a determining factor. I should also note that as an academic, it is not unusual for course work to be evaluated and equated into degrees. In today’s academic setting, experience is being evaluated and equated to degrees (BA). Experience is also used to grant degrees or entry into Master’s programmes like Executive Masters (MBAs).
Alexander also made reference to Persaud’s appointment at GECOM in 2001 by the then Chair. Neither the present Chair nor the Commission can go back to what happened in 2001. That matter was already decided by the Commission at that time. That is history now. The Commission is presented with the credentials of the applicants now and an evaluation must be made on the basis of these updated credentials.
I do not think Howard has as much experience as Persaud in managing elections. Persaud has worked in GECOM as part of its operations, as DCEO and other positions. Therefore, he meets the criteria.
On the role of the Chair, Ret’d Justice Claudette Singh showed throughout the five month-election saga, that she respects democracy and the court. She did not make hasty decisions. She worked within the legal framework. When matters were pending before the court, she waited for them to run their course before making a decision. She was methodical, careful and exercised restraint on decision-making as any good GECOM Chair should do. There were attempts to terrorise her in the first week of the post-election period. She resisted them and stood up in defense of democracy.
Alexander argues for an outsourcing of the selection of the CEO. Election bodies are independent and must execute its own work. A commission does not outsource evaluation of candidates. GECOM is an election management body. It cannot depend on an external agency to do its work. In evaluating applicants, it must look for attributes in totality. GECOM has laid down its process for evaluation and selection of an appointee. It is competent to hold interviews of applicants, take all circumstances and factors into view to make a decision. As I see it, this is what the Commission did. It is inappropriate to attack the Chair. She is entitled to cast a vote. She has that power. It is the decision of the Commission. One can criticise the Commission but not the Chair.
Vishnu Persaud stated categorically that he would be neutral. Vincent Alexander’s challenge should therefore be to hold him to that standard rather than ridiculing him and maligning the integrity of the Chair.

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram

---

---