I was concerned about the process that was used to choose Mr Statia

Dear Editor,

With reference to the letter `Goolsarran, others hired by government or in private practice should not have columns in newspapers’ in yesterday’s edition of Stabroek News, I wish to make the following points.

1. I honestly have no objections to Mr. Statia being appointed Commissioner-General, and in fact in my column I did congratulate him. I truly believe that if the toss up was between Mr. Statia and the Canadian-based Guyanese, Mr. Statia would have prevailed.
2. What I was concerned about was the process that was used in making the selection. The way the job requirements as advertised were formulated, only Mr. Statia would have met the requirements of 15 years’ experience in customs and tax administration, with a minimum of eight years being at an executive management level.

There was no consideration of external candidates with comparable experience.

3. As an analogy, if you want to buy a refrigerator and you design the specifications so that only the Phillips brand meets the specifications, in procurement terms, it is called “bid rigging”. Standard procurement practices dictate that specifications must be generic in nature, and not tailored to suit a particular supplier. I am sure Mr. Hinds, as a chartered accountant, would agree to this.
4. My understanding is that three persons were interviewed for the job, including Mr. Statia and the Canadian-based Guyanese. Two days later, the Board announced publicly that no suitable candidate was found!

Accordingly, it proceeded to re-advertise for the position. At the same time, negotiations were held with Mr. Statia who eventually agreed to the remuneration package that his predecessor was getting. As a result, the advertisement was recalled and Mr. Statia was appointed.

5. If the interview panel was unable to meet the demands of the top candidate, the next best candidate should have been offered the position. Again, in procurement terms, you simply cannot negotiate with bidders. In the case of consulting services, negotiation is only permitted when the selection is made, not before. I believe that the selection panel in retrospect would have realised that it erred in this regard.
6. As regards whether being a columnist presents a conflict situation in view of the fact that I had undertaken four forensic audits at a cost of $7.2 million (and not $40 million as one mischievous letter-writer boldly asserted), I believe that the reverse is the case. For want of a better term, let’s call it compatible interest, complementary interest, or interest in goal congruence, if you will.
7. Readers should note that I started the “Accountability Column” in the Stabroek News in 2012. For three years, I gave voluntary service and was not in gainful employment. When there was a change in Administration in May 2015, I reluctantly agreed to undertake the four audits referred to above while continuing to write my weekly column. Should I give up writing because I undertook these audits?
8. If I have the choice of either doing an assignment for the Government or to continue with my column, I would have no hesitation than to choose the latter because of my passion and love for research and writing. On the other hand, if I choose to be in full-time employment with the Government, and to the extent that maintaining my column conflicts with my role in such employment, then I will do the honourable, and morally and ethically right thing. I will discontinue my column.

Yours faithfully,

Anand Goolsarran