The withdrawal of the Critchlow Labour College subvention was a political act

Dear Editor,

I write to correct the misrepresentations made by the Mrs Gillian Burton Persaud during her contribution to the 2015 Budget debate. In her presentation Mrs Persaud stated that the decision to withdraw the subvention from the Critchlow Labour College was not political but due to the lack of accountability and transparency.

I wish to draw to the public’s attention to the issues surrounding the withdrawal of the subvention in 2004 and 2007. I served as Principal of the college from 2000-2004 and during those years the subvention given to the college was granted through the Ministry of Education. A separate subvention given to the Guyana Trades Union Congress was issued through the Ministry of Finance each year.

The college was audited by officers of the Auditor’s General Office in accordance with the requirements for agencies receiving government subventions; also each year the college presented its budget and financial reports to the Board of Governors. To state that there was no transparency and accountability is to perpetrate a deliberate lie to justify a political position.

The issue to me was political given the sequence of events:

  1. In 2002, there was a public falling out between the Guyana Trades Union Congress and the Bharrat Jagdeo government after the General Secretary of the GTUC had accused the government of promoting economic “genocide” in its dealings with the residents of Region 10. Arising out of this, the subvention to the GTUC was withdrawn within the same year.
  2. Some months after the withdrawal of the subvention given to the GTUC, a report was made to the government (which I was required to refute) that the subvention given to the college was being used to support the GTUC; the matter was investigated and found to be without merit. At no point were the funds granted to the college in the form of a subvention used to do anything other than run the educational programme of the college.
  3. Before the subvention to the college was withdrawn I was informed of this fact by the then President of the GTUC, and was advised to resign in order to protect my name since it was stated that with the withdrawal of the subvention the college would collapse, and the good work that I had started would be destroyed. At that time there was no mention of accountability and transparency. This surfaced later after the withdrawal of the subvention was made public.
  4. When the issue of a lack of audit was raised, I brought to the attention of officials that the college was audited each year by the Auditor General’s Office. I was instructed that a separate audit conducted by non-governmental auditors is required. It should be noted here that the government auditors were the ones auditing the college as far back as records were available for scrutiny, and this was accepted as meeting the requirements.
  5. In response to the withdrawal of the subvention a request was made for reconsideration and time to effect the necessary audit. Representation was made on this matter to the Minister by the planning unit of the Ministry of Education, but to no avail.
  6. In an effort to keep the college running I resigned as Principal but continued my services free of charge to the college. I was employed as a consultant (Community Involvement Specialist) under the BEAMS Project with the Ministry of Education during the day and worked at the college for free during the evening. I was, however, instructed to remove myself from the college or my position as a consultant would be terminated.
  7. The college carried out the audits as requested and the subvention was restored after much negotiation between the GTUC and the government. However, in 2007 even with the audits in place the subvention was withdrawn again. Since I was not Principal then, I cannot give a full account of the sequence of events that led to this. However, I do know that Mrs Gillian Persaud in her capacity as President of the GTUC lambasted the government over the withdrawal of the subvention deeming it politically motivated. It is strange that the same Mrs Burton Persaud is now singing a different tune.

Based on the events outlined above, can it truly be said that the withdrawal of the subvention was purely non-political?

Yours faithfully,
Phillip Walcott
Former Principal
Critchlow Labour College