Limited knowledge of Claims and Objections (Part 2)

Dear Editor,
Mr Kumar wrote, “Currently, the political parties and the nation are yet to receive a report on the transactions that were completed, including registrations done, transfers done, and changes done at each GECOM office in the country”.  He went on to say, inter alia, “We wait, but when would the report be available? GECOM appears to be doing everything within its authority to block information from reaching the public, thus implying that the body is not obligated by law to provide certain information, according to a release from Chief Elections Officer Lowenfield to the People’s Progressive Party”.
The Chief Election Officer gave copies of the categories and respective numbers of registration transactions which were conducted during the registration phase of the 9th Cycle of Continuous Registration exercise, and an electronic copy of the current Preliminary List of Electors (PLE).  This was done at the above mentioned meeting.  Further, at that meeting, the PPP delegation requested a hard copy of the PLE and summaries of the new registrations and transfers by Registration Division that were done during the exercise.  This was provided to the Party on Friday, April 21, 2017.
Identical data was provided to the APNU/AFC via the coalition’s representative, who was also present at the above mentioned meeting.
Mr Kumar wrote: “There are reports of exorbitant spending by the elections body for the registration period. Many vehicles were rented and hired beforehand, yet many special taxis still had to be utilized. It was also reported that water and air transportation costs were deliberately inflated and exceeded the planned budget, and meals and meals allowances were costly”.
In this regard, we hereby state unequivocally that:-
(i)     No vehicle was hired beforehand; and if any, the hire of “special” taxis would have been minimal and only in Registration Areas where no GECOM-owned vehicle was posted
(ii)    Water transportation for hinterland riverine areas was hired following an advertisement being published for the provision of such services to be tendered for
(iii)    We are satisfied that the costs associated with the provision of meals for GECOM staff and party scrutineers were within acceptable limits and within the relevant budgetary provisions
(iv)    We will leave it up to the companies that provided air services to comment on whether they engaged in collusion with the GECOM Secretariat relative to the claim that  the relevant charges were inflated,
(v)    Any audit of the relevant vouchers and supporting documents would substantiate our position.
Mr Kumar also wrote: “Also noticeable during the registration exercise was the treatment of the public by some of the so-called trained GECOM staff.  Some officers were guilty of being rude and disrespectful to persons wanting to do transactions; young registrants were bullied, and some were even asked to leave buildings for being inappropriately dressed, whereas others were allowed in despite wearing similar attire. The young registrants that are perceived to be PPP, especially girls, faced the brunt of some GECOM officers’ actions. It was quite disgusting that in numerous cases, persons left GECOM centres, never to return, because of the officers’ attitude”.
He added that “some of the PPP scrutineers faced the same treatment, and many accepted what was meted out to them as they wanted to remain in the centres to prevent the officers from committing any intended skulduggery”
At senior management level, we never fail to remind all frontline staff – who interact with members of the public in general – of the need for them to maintain courtesy, professionalism and efficiency.  In fact, this need was reinforced at the last Meeting of Managers of the Secretariat and Registration Officers on April 7, 2017, and again at refresher training sessions across Guyana on April 19 and 21, 2017.  This action was taken not in response to complaints made against our staff, but because this is in line with our strategy for the maintenance of a good public image between and among the Commission’s public.  Having said that, we invite all stakeholders to bring to our attention any official malpractice that might have been committed by any of our staff, to enable us to deal with any such occurrence accordingly.  However, such stakeholders must be prepared to substantiate the report(s), as we cannot, and will not, entertain hearsay.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, we must reiterate that all of the questions/concerns pertaining to the work of the GECOM Secretariat documented by Mr Kumar in his letters could have been raised and answered at the abovementioned meeting that was held on April 20, 2017.  Accordingly, we invite Mr Kumar and any other stakeholder to contact the Chief Election Officer for adequate and appropriate response(s) to any pertinent query/concern pertaining to the work of the GECOM Secretariat.

Sincerely,
Vishnu Persaud
Deputy Chief
Election Officer