Dear Editor,
I desire to make some comments on your SN report of August 27, captioned, ‘Public Service Commission appointments not based on proper consultation – GPSU.’ Although the report failed to state the source of information garnered, it referred to my brief remarks made in the National Assembly during consideration of the report of the Standing Committee on Appointments (SCA). As the AFC’s parliamentary representative on the (SCA), I need to state, that like the Parliamentary Management Committee, the Standing Order rules of the National Assembly require that the business of these two Standing Committees be conducted in private unlike the business of other parliamentary Committees. My public comments, therefore, are constrained in view of this rule.

Since the tenure of the eighth parliament in 2001, the matter of the legitimacy of the Public Service Senior Staff Association (PSSSA) has been a burning issue with the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) and, indeed, with the parliamentary opposition parties, the AFC included. The issue surrounds the merit or demerit of their presence on the list of entities deserving to be consulted by the SCA for the purpose of appointing persons to the Public Service Commission (PSC).

Vera Naughton has been consistently nominated by (GPSU) to be considered for appointment to the (PSC) without success both in the last Parliament and in this one, to which your report refers. I supported her nomination in the last parliament but was absent on leave from the National Assembly during the vote on the matter on April 20, 2010. The SCA report, which is available to the public states at item 19:

“In the absence of two Members of the PNC/R, the Member present refrained from making a proposal.  The Member of the AFC was not present.  The first two proposals, therefore, were put, and by a majority vote the Committee nominated Mr. Cecil Seepersaud and Mr. Carvil Duncan.”

The majority PPP/C vote on the SCA was in favour of Carvil Duncan of the (GLU) and Cecil Seepersaud of the (PSSSA).

I am assuming, therefore, that the objection voiced by Lincoln Lewis, Freddie Kissoon, the GPSU et al, was about my support for the report submitted to the National Assembly by the SCA. On that matter I opine that opposition members on the SCA would have had to support, as is customary, the contents of the report for accuracy before it reached the floor of the National Assembly.

The report does not state that I supported the appointments. What the brouhaha seems to be all about must be my support of the SCA report on the floor of the National Assembly. I would like to point out that as opposition members of the SCA, the PNCR Members of Parliament and I are constituent parts of that committee. Therefore, we are part and parcel of the report as a whole whether we like the outcome or not.

I learnt a long time ago to value a well-honed management principle which recommends that one should act within one’s areas of influence. This is what I did rather than rant and rave or ‘cry over spilt milk.’  The fact is the ‘die had been cast’ on the appointments of GPSU commissioners. The opposition lost.

Given these realities I chose to think outside the box during the debate on the SCA report. I opted to call the attention of the society as a whole and, indeed, to the newly appointed Commissioners of the PSC in particular, to what the constitution directs about the role GPSU Commissioners are expected to play. These constitutional principles are expressed in Article 212FF and states that the commissioners are obliged to uphold the following:

●  Act in the national interest in a manner to affect a wide cross-section of the populace.

● Monitor the performance of the commissioners.

● Eschew political interference.

● Minimize the influence of the executive, while aiming for the public perception of impartiality.

If the commissioners on the PSC appear to be violating these principles it is for the members of the GTUC, the GPSU, members of the public et al to raise their voices against them, persistently advocating, condemning as necessary and judging their performance based on these principles.

Yours faithfully,
Sheila Holder