Dear Editor,
On November 1st, 2018 readers of Stabroek News were once again subjected to the ongoing diatribe of Commissioner Bibi Shadick in a letter captioned ‘Logistical details for election day look good on paper’, in which she vented her spleen on developments at the meeting of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), which took place on October 30th, 2018. As usual, her obsession with misrepresenting information and misinforming the public, dominated her narrative of the events.
In this letter I do not propose to address all of the issues raised by the Commissioner. However, I will refer to a few of them while making some general comments on the situation at GECOM
The first point I wish to make is this: I gather that the Commissioner was terribly hurt by my contradiction of her blatant misrepresentation of facts surrounding a number of issues that engaged the attention of GECOM, over a period of time. This point is reflected in her sarcastic reference to “Commissioner Trotman does not like the record of what he is reported to have said, he tries to correct it so that his contribution sounds better”. Some-thing is seriously wrong with this individual.
It is true that I was dissatisfied with what was reported in the minutes of the meeting and I was duty bound to correct it. In doing so, I did what every member of the Commission does, including Ms. Shadick. The records will show that she, along with Commissioner Robeson Benn, more than any other Commissioner, does the same thing. She is fully aware that it is an acceptable norm in every organisation, where, under the agenda item – Omissions and Corrections of Minutes – participants seek to clarify by insertion or deletion in a reported text, the substance/meaning of what was really said. At GECOM it is no different.
My second point is in reference to the ongoing attacks on the Chairman, CEO and DCEO, which continue unabated and have assumed ridiculous proportions. The PPP Commissioners are very critical of their every effort. While it is true that at the meeting of October 30th there was no direct attack on the Legal Officer, she is very often subjected to derogatory remarks which leave no doubt of their contempt for her, whether she is present or absent from the meetings.
Thirdly, Commissioner Shadick went to great lengths in her letter to show the disparity in the fees charged by Attorney-at-Law Roysdale Forde and the Law Firm of Fraser, Housty and Yearwood and Senior Counsel Ashton Chase. She seems to have conveniently forgotten that on a previous occasion, when this matter came up for discussion at a meeting of the Commission, I raised the question as to whether there was/is a fixed rate to be charged by attorneys for work done and she said the fees are left to the discretion of the individual attorney. So what is her point?
Fourthly, I want to use this opportunity to congratulate the DCEO for her objective critique of the weaknesses/shortcomings, which were highlighted in her preliminary report on the nomination day exercise. The relevant recommendations from her to improve the system are timely and deeply appreciated and are intended to improve the operationalisation of the system. This is what good managers do. I also want to congratulate the PRO for working above and beyond the call of duty, particularly in this period that GECOM is engaged in. Her contributions to the Civic and Voter Education programme are tremendous. Even Commissioner Shadick was forced to acknowledge this. Some of us, in recommending her for the position, were convinced that she possessed these qualities. Our confidence in her has not been misplaced.
My three final points are:-
(i) The need to fill a number of senior positions at GECOM is becoming more urgent as the days go by. Appointing persons to these positions will allow for greater planning, execution and coordination of GECOM’s work. The blame for the failure to fill these positions must be placed squarely at the doors of Commissioners Benn and Shadick who are of the view that until the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) completes its findings on the allegations they have made to it against GECOM, they are not prepared to continue interviewing applicants for the unfilled positions. It seems to me that they are trying to put pressure on the ERC to arrive at a decision that fits into their game plan. I take this opportunity to warn them and to inform the Guyanese public that even in a fully staffed organisation/work environment, hiccups are present. In GECOM’s case, where several senior positions are still to be filled, chaos could result. These positions can and must be filled by persons, who, on the basis of meritocracy, are found to have the required attributes.
(ii) It must be realised that GECOM’s staff are human beings and must be treated as such. They exist in a situation at GECOM where at least two PPP members of the Commission believe that staff members should be treated as if they are less than humans, to be intimidated and dealt with in the worst possible way. While it is true that cases must be dealt with in such a way that leaves no doubt about the seriousness of Commissioners to ensure that GECOM’s business is dealt with in a transparent and accountable framework, each case must be dealt with on its individual merit. It is clear to me that the PPP Commissioners do not understand how to function in a democratic environment. They have been close to the power center for too long and seem incapable of tailoring their behavior, which is clearly authoritarian, to a new dispensation. They give the impression that the only views that matter are those which they hold. If this is not a nonsensical position what is? I want to plead with them to adjust their attitudes, try to work with the people who they refuse to accept as having an ongoing role at GECOM. As far as I can see those persons whom they have rejected, are going to be here for a long time, even beyond 2020, unless something untoward happens. I do believe that once they are here for the 2020 elections they will deliver results that will be applauded locally, regionally and internationally. The PPP Commissioners will have to live with that reality.
(iii) I want to thank Commissioner Shadick for inadvertently disclosing information that is vital to the work of GECOM, which was given to her outside of the knowledge of at least three other Commissioners. This information is contained in her observation in the first paragraph of her letter in which she said “Today’s meeting oddly starts on time. It is as if the Chairman, having just recently signed his contract has decided that meetings need to start at 1pm. Imagine, he did not even send his secretary to find out if there was a quorum, as is his usual practice”. My concern is not about the commencement time of the meeting, nor, is it even about whether her assertion about the reason for the Chairman calling the meeting to order is correct or not, my concern is about the information in respect to the Chairman’s contract being known by PPP Commissioners at a time when it has not been discussed at any meeting of GECOM, how the information was revealed to them and by whom? Was the details of the Chairman’s contract the subject of a senior management discussion of GECOM’s Secretariat? If that has not been the case, then that information could only be known to at the most, three highly placed GECOM functionaries. Releasing that information violates the principle of safeguarding confidential information within the organisation and the source should be quickly identified. I say this because inherent in what has transpired in this matter is the possibility that persons within GECOM’s employ may, out of partisan political interests, or, for a price, or both, may go in the direction of compromising the integrity of GECOM’s operations with serious consequences for the future. Further, GECOM should not rule out the possibility that those who are in the business of accusing GECOM of working to rig the 2020 elections are themselves putting in place a mechanism to guarantee for themselves a result that is most favourable to them, or be in a position to call foul if that objective is not achieved.
GECOM beware.
Yours faithfully,
Desmond Trotman
GECOM Commissioner
