Before so doing, I feel compelled to point out that GECOM was not afforded the courtesy of responding to Ms Seal’s [sic] letter, whereas this advantage was extended to her in so far as the response penned by me is concerned. Why do I sense that this was done purposefully?
According to the comment, Ms Seals [sic] noted that two issues which were raised by her were not addressed by me. These are (i) Ms Seales had been advised that her current ID card was a legitimate form of identification for the purpose of uplifting her new ID card, and (ii) that an accusation had been levelled against her by the official in charge of the distribution centre that she was attempting to deceive the Commission.
With respect to the first issue, I must emphasize that in none of our media releases/notices relative to the ID card distribution exercise have we advised that current ID cards could be used for the purpose of uplifting new ID cards. In fact, in all of our media releases/notices which have been sent to and published by the Stabroek News, we specifically accentuated the need for registrants to present the “pink slip” when collecting the ID cards. Further, GECOM issued no directive to the effect that presentation of a current ID card would facilitate the delivery of the new ID card to the relevant registrant.
Apropos the second issue, I treated the purported and unsubstantiated accusation as just that. I cannot and will not respond to unsubstantiated assertions. However, in this regard I wish to point out that we launched an internal investigation of the concerns raised by Ms Seals [sic] in her letter. Our investigation entailed getting a statement signed by all of the GECOM temporary staff and the two scrutineers working at the distribution centre. This statement notes (i) collective denial of Ms Seals’ [sic] assertions, and (ii) collective counter assertions about Ms Seals’ behaviour.
Please allow me to point out that I have no first hand knowledge of what transpired at the distribution centre in question. On the one hand I am aware of Ms Seals’ [sic] concerns as appeared in your newspaper, and on the other I am in possession of a statement signed by all of the GECOM temporary staff and the two scrutineers working there. Having reviewed the information before me I felt compelled to approach the matter in a conciliatory manner. Hence, I extended the opportunity to the letter writer, who turned out to be Ms Seals [sic], to visit my office with a view to bringing about an acceptable resolution.
Ms Seals [sic] visited my office on the morning of Thursday, November 19, 2009, and we had a very amicable discourse on this matter, at least in so far as I am concerned. At the conclusion of the discussion, I gave Ms Seals [sic] my card and invited her to contact me before revisiting the distribution centre to collect her new ID card. My intention in so doing was to ensure the mutually satisfactory delivery of her ID card. Consequently, I am surprised by the comment attributed to the above referred letter.
In view of this case, we once again appeal to registrants to ensure that they present their “pink slips” when they go to uplift their ID cards. In so doing they would be (i) saving valuable time, contributing to an acceleration of the delivery process, preventing the generation of unnecessary controversies, and helping to make the entire ID card distribution exercise a mutually satisfactory one.
I now expect that this matter be put to rest.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Persaud
Public Relations Officer
Editor’s note
Mr Persaud decided to reveal the identity of the letter-writer which we had withheld. Normally, we would not publish the names of those who ask for anonymity, even if Mr Persaud reveals who they are in his correspondence. In this instance, however, a member of our own staff was involved, and we allowed Mr Persaud’s references to her identity to be published. Since he had now named her, however, we afforded her the opportunity of responding to his letter.
Ms Seales’ comments on Mr Persuad’s letter above follow:
“I indeed met with Mr Persaud following the publication of the first letter by GECOM on this issue, but I gave him no indication that the Commission had satisfactorily addressed my concerns. I stand by my account of what transpired at the distribution centre.
“Mr Persaud was gracious in offering me his card to contact him, but I chose to return to uplift my ID card as an ordinary registrant. I am now in possession of my card, and there are no issues with the photograph, even though I was told previously it was not my true image.”
