Dear Editor,
In early January, I applied to renew my driver’s licence. I fully understood that the process would involve returning to collect the newly issued licence. I was given a date within two weeks to collect. On returning on the appointed day, the clerk took my temporary permit that allowed driving up to that date and proceeded to write on it, extending the temporary licence to February 25. It was then handed back to me with the comment that I should return on the new date. I inquired as to the reason but got none. After a minor protest, I left, realizing its futility, and that this is the type of service one has grown to expect from public employees. But what blew my stack is on returning again on or around the appointed date, my temporary licence was again amended to return on March 30. Asking to speak to a manager, I was directed to the next window where the same amendment was being made to the licence of another unfortunate victim. I again asked for an explanation, but this time the budget got the blame. I asked why public prior notice was not given and got a shoulder shrug.
It has been my contention that the lousy service we receive in the public sector is mainly the result of managers having little notion of what the management function requires. They basically think managing is maintaining the status quo. Why couldn’t a notice in the media be provided as to the new date? How many hundreds of persons trying to renew their licences were turned away? How much productive time was lost standing in line and finding parking, and what were the transportation costs incurred getting to the GRA offices?
I have little confidence that President Granger’s training programme for the public service will have any impact on these attitudes, as I am aware of the vast amount of resources expended in the retraining of nurses with little effect.
Yours faithfully,
Louis Holder
