On February 6th, 2019, a subcommittee of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) completed a report into a complaint that had been lodged with it by the three Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) opposition-nominated commissioners that employment practices have been biased and also that Deputy Chief Election Officer (DCEO) Roxanne Myers had been unfairly selected over the former holder of that position Vishnu Persaud by virtue of the vote of the Chairman, Justice (Rtd) James Patterson.
The claim of the racially skewed hiring of GECOM personnel remains an unanswered question as the Human Resources Manager, Marcia Crawford flatly refused to assist the ERC sub-committee.
The report said that Ms Crawford’s failure to appear at the investigation has stopped it from adequately examining and evaluating:
-The allegation of ethnic imbalance that formed part of the complaint concerning employment practices;
-The alleged discriminatory employment practices prior to and post November 2017;
-The Organisation Chart to determine who should be reporting to whom;
-The methodology used in the selection of a successful candidate for employment at GECOM.
Ms Crawford should not have been permitted to derail this investigation by a constitutional commission. She should have been ordered by her GECOM superior to co-operate with the ERC. It is unclear why this was not done. If there was still no co-operation from her, the employment records of her department should have been handed over to the subcommittee. Ms Crawford should be sanctioned for her intransigent behaviour and note taken of her conduct for any future consideration of preferment.
While no conclusion could be reached about discrimination in employment on the basis of race, it is no doubt an issue that is complex. As in other parts of public service employment, larger numbers of one group may have gravitated towards seeking employment at GECOM over others. It is however the responsibility of GECOM to present itself as an equal opportunity employer. The litmus test for GECOM or any other agency for that matter should be to ensure that no candidate is preferred over another because of their race, sexual orientation or other grounds as set out in the constitution. In light of this complaint, GECOM must henceforth show awareness that there are concerns about race in its employment practices and it must be prepared to defend its hiring decisions.
As it relates to the question of the hiring of Ms Myers over Mr Persaud, it is clear from the findings of the subcommittee report that the better candidate was Mr Persaud based on his experience and actual work performance and that he should have been hired. The decision in favour of Ms Myers, engineered by the three government-appointed commissioners and made viable by Justice Patterson’s vote was therefore a travesty. An injustice was done to Mr Persaud and the ERC report will provide grounds for him to prosecute his case further.
While the three government-appointed commissioners did not present cogent grounds for opposing Mr Persaud’s appointment, it was the Chairman whose vote against Persaud clearly flummoxed the ERC subcommittee. Without having any direct knowledge of anything that would provide grounds for him to do so, Justice Patterson labelled Mr Persaud as “shifty” and when pressed could provide no supporting information. Further, he failed to live up to his promise to provide the ERC subcommittee with documentary evidence to underpin his concerns about the alleged shiftiness of Mr Persaud whom he did not know.
This was most astonishing conduct by Justice Patterson considering that he was formerly a member of the bench wherefrom justice was supposed to have been dispensed on the basis of evidence presented to the court. Justice Patterson’s conduct in this matter was reprehensible and adds to the concerns about whether he is a fit and proper holder of the office of GECOM Chairman. His vote against Mr Persaud and the recent decisions pertaining to the GECOM work programme raise serious questions about whether he can be relied upon to be fair and unbiased in this crucial role that he holds.
The recounting in the report of the ERC subcommittee of the encounter with Justice Patterson is instructive. When asked how he decided which candidate to choose, Justice Patterson said: “What I saw in one particular candidate, what I saw was written evidence; he said he had Y and he didn’t, if I can recall some qualifications which were perilous…”
He added “The other candidate wasn’t so…didn’t have anything to spark my suspicion of lying or anything like that, one candidate if I recall say he had certain degrees which he didn’t, the other candidate did have those degrees, one candidate seems shifty, the other candidate wasn’t, those are the things that…”
The subcommittee then asked who was the “shifty” candidate and the report said that Patterson’s unequivocal response was “Persaud”.
When the subcommittee asked how long Justice Patterson had had any interaction with Mr Persaud it said that the “surprising” response was “None at all, as we see it. I don’t think …I ever saw him”.
Noting that Justice Patterson had not had face to face contact with Mr Persaud, the report said that the Chairman further stated: “the thing with that particular candidate was that he came over to me as shifty and unreliable, that is constant in my mind and I was not going to recommend him in the place of somebody who I think was…shall we use the term ‘fit and proper’ for that particular position. I saw sufficient to raise a red flag or more than one red flag that this gentleman does not come up to basic standards of character and honesty that I like to have working with me”.
The Deputy Chairman of the ERC then referred to Mr Persaud’s 12 years of experience at GECOM and Ms Myers’ failure to appear before the inquiry despite several invitations to do so. The Chairman could provide no proper response and acknowledged that he didn’t interface with either of the applicants.
When asked about how he had determined Mr Persaud’s shiftiness, the Chairman referred to a “paper trail” and said that he would muster the documentation. This was not done despite several requests to do so.
The ERC subcommittee was scathing in its commentary. It said: “Retired Justice Patterson’s failure to produce the documentation on which he based his conclusion that Mr Persaud was an unsatisfactory candidate has grossly discredited his finding concerning Mr Persaud’s shiftiness, unreliability and dishonesty. To the extent that Justice Patterson’s vote against Mr Persaud was based upon the phantom documents, it was based upon an ephemeral foundation which was never produced before the subcommittee. Throughout the course of the investigation the subcommittee found no evidence to suggest that Mr Persaud made any misrepresentation with regard to his qualification to the Commission. What is more, he struck the subcommittee as candid and forthright during the course of his two appearances”.
Justice Patterson clearly had no basis upon which to make his decision against Mr Persaud and his vote in favour of Ms Myers raises the question of whether he can perform in a fair and impartial manner or is simply there to serve the political interests of APNU+AFC.
