Dear Editor,
The letter in SN titled ‘The Auditor General must focus on Gecom’s heavily padded payroll’, dated March 15, 2017 was another example of a malicious missive against Gecom and the people who work within the organisation. Mr Neil Kumar is misguided in his allegations or his letter is a malevolent ploy to undermine the functions and staff of Gecom.
We have responded to communications of this nature before, but at this point, it is necessary to reiterate that we operate within the confines of the law. Why wouldn’t we, especially when an organisation of this nature is subjected to so much scrutiny? Moreover, all functions and activities executed by the Gecom are approved by the Commission, even if a false impression to the contrary has been given.
Mr Kumar began his letter by talking about Dr Surujbally’s resignation which he described as having occurred “suddenly and swiftly”. At his farewell media conference on February 28, 2017, Dr Surujbally indicated that both the President of Guyana and the Opposition Leader had requested that he stay on the job after he had indicated his desire to resign from his post as Chairman of Gecom. In other words, his staying on as Chairman was not a “further questionable prolonged accommodation by the APNU+AFC government”, as Mr Kumar claimed.
Auditing
With regards to the audit, as indicated to the readership before, we will not comment at this time since an investigation is ongoing, at the end of which the Auditor General will present the findings. There is a procedure in audit investigations and we will continue to subscribe to that and not get into cross talk via letters. Suffice it is to say, however, the Internal Audit Department of the Ministry of Finance has already completed the audit of the payroll system of Gecom for the period July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016. Notwithstanding that, if Mr Kumar and his friends want to instruct the Auditor General on how and where to do his job, he is free to so do.
Employment
The Guyana Elections Commission employed over eleven thousand (11,000) temporary staff during the 2015 General and Regional Elections and over eight thousand, one hundred (8,100) during the 2016 Local Government Elections. Both of these employment processes were subjected to the highest level of scrutiny, transparency and ethical standards, which were approved by the Commission.
Advertisements for employment were published in the daily newspapers and thousands of persons responded from communities across Guyana. Applicants then received two days of comprehensive training and were subjected to an evaluation. Those who were successful, were then selected and subsequently given appointments. Based on scores obtained, persons were appropriately designated Presiding Officer, Assistant Presiding Officer, Poll Clerk, Ballot Clerk and Information Clerk.
The process of payment was by the authority of the appointment letters, confirmation of the person(s) who worked by his/her signature and approval on polling day by the Presiding Officer (PO). Timesheets were subsequently sent to the Finance Section in Gecom for verification and preparation of payment.
Let us walk through the steps again:
- Advertisements of interest were published.
- Interested persons across Guyana applied.
- Those applicants were trained and evaluated.
- Those who received qualifying scores were then given positions.
How then is this “a recruitment drive which reflects partisan politics”? When irresponsible statements like these are written, they stir up unnecessary suspicion. More so, they also suggest that we have been unprofessional and immature about our jobs and in discharging our responsibility to this nation. Furthermore, it is an insult to those persons who were successful at these evaluations and who served in the field during these elections. Therefore, to resuscitate this matter, make claims of nepotism, corruption and cast aspersions, is an affront to the hard working Guyanese employed by Gecom.
Payment
Payments made to all temporary staff during the 2015 and 2016 elections were conducted transparently and in accordance with the financial regulations as provided by the Ministry of Finance. As such, if the Auditor General wishes to inspect our systems, processes and records, he can. Our appointment of staff and payroll systems will withstand objective scrutiny by any professional and independent organization.
The Chief Elections Officer
The rhetoric that has been prevailing against the Chief Elections Officer, Mr Lowenfield has been very hostile and has encouraged hate statements and threats directed to him. We can only condemn these wild and venomous statements against this organisation and our members of staff.
Yours faithfully,
Tamara Rodney
Public Relations Officer