Dear Editor,
Even as our teachers undertook a battle for a living wage, information received highlights that many of the teachers who struck may be targeted. The threats suggested that the likelihood of persons from the teaching ranks who had applied for work as temporary Guyana Election Commission (GECOM) staff would be struck off of the approved list if they had been identified in the protests and did not return to work immediately.
It is public knowledge that many teachers form the larger group of public servants from which Elections support staff for GECOM are drawn, in keeping with Section 161A (4) of the Constitution, Cap, 1.01.
The suggestion that the lists of persons selected by GECOM can be influenced speaks volumes, and must not be taken lightly by any stakeholder. It also raises genuine questions regarding the influence the Coalition may have in light of the highly questionable approach used to select and appoint the Chairman, Justice (R’td) James Patterson, who has made some very biased decisions to date.
Be this as it may, the situation brings to light the Government’s conveyed intent, as they seem to take pride in signalling the imposition of a mechanism to manipulate and confuse in attempting to frustrate and ‘bamboozle’ many stakeholders at the upcoming November 12th Local Government Elections.
On the side of the Elections Commission, a review of GECOM’s Official Manual for Returning Officers and other Election Officials for the 2018 Local Government Elections lends to the similar conclusions of intent of causing confusion or sub-standard approach to the review of the guidance manual.
It is stated on page twenty (20) that: “The number of Candidates on the Proportional Representation List must not be less than the number of Councillors for the Local Authority Area, or more than such number plus ten”.
Accordingly, this translates that any contesting party or group can submit a list of twenty-eight candidates in an LAA such as Eccles-Ramsburg NDC, which has a total of eighteen constituency seats.
However, on page 28 of the same manual, the Proportional Representation component is thus addressed by GECOM: “As was previously stated, each Voluntary Group or Political Party must submit a list with ten (10) or more names of Candidates than the total number of Councillors for the Proportional Representation Component for the specific Local Authority Area.”
The latter can be interpreted to mean in the case of the Municipality of Georgetown, which has a total of 15 seats for the Proportional Representation Component: that a political party must submit a list of candidates of not less than fifteen and not more than twenty-five (25). This, compared to the previously mentioned 28 (on page 20), is indeed misleading and is proof of incompetence.
There are serious partisan issues with the recruiting of staff under the GECOM Secretariat. Disappointingly, the current Chairman of the Commission has not done much work to demonstrate a balanced and transparent approach as a corrective measure. It is widely known that persons with excellent records, who worked with GECOM since 1992 at various levels, including Assistant Presiding Officers, have not been selected, and the treatment of their application smacks of blatant racial discrimination.
In the case of one such person whose application was rejected by GECOM, that person previously worked as follows:
1. 1994: As Deputy Electoral Registrar and Deputy Returning Officer.
2. 2001: As Core Trainer; Disciplined Services Ballot Attendant, (for both Regional and National Elections). 3. 2006: As Trainer, Regional and National Elections; Disciplined Services Ballot Attendant at the General and Regional Elections.
4. 2008: As Supervisor, East Bank Demerara for House-to-House Registration.
5. 2011: As Trainer, Regional and General Elections; Deputy Returning Officer (Supernumerary attached to the Returning Officer- District 4, at the General and Regional Elections.
From the foregoing, one must wonder why such inexplicit decision has been taken by GECOM to reject the application of a person with the outlined experience and level of performance. Clearly, the appointment of Returning Officers is highly questionable, particularly given the fact that many permanent staff at GECOM are now catapulted to being Returning Officers.
As for the other positions: Presiding Officers, Polling Clerks, and the many others, GECOM will have to do better.
Sincerely,
Neil Kumar
