Anyone who had hoped that we would be holding local government elections this year will by now realise that is unlikely. Apart from anything else we do not have a Chief Election Officer yet, in addition to which there are a number of other vacancies at Gecom. Some of the delay was caused by the fact that former CEO, Mr Keith Lowenfield, had resorted to the courts over the form his termination took, an action which held up progress for two months. It was after he and Deputy Chief Election Officer Roxanne Myers as well as Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo had been terminated, that the Commission then turned its attention to advertising for the various posts.
On September 30 it published a vacancy ad, inviting applications for the positions of CEO, Deputy CEO, Assistant CEO, Chief Accountant, Legal Officer, Logistics Manager, and Civic and Voter Education Manager. In a press release of the same date it said that the advertisement would run for two weeks, while in the notice itself the deadline for the submission of applications was given as October 14.
As was explained by government-appointed Commissioner Sase Gunraj, there was no contention in relation to the duties of a CEO, since the parameters were codified in Guyana’s laws. What had to be discussed were the qualifications which should be required, and the matter of remuneration. In the event, it was said in the advertisement that someone with a post-graduate degree in Public Administration, Law, Management or a relevant discipline from a reputable and recognised institution would be best suited for the job.
A prerequisite, however, was that the person should have at least ten years’ experience in the management of national elections and election systems. They should also have some training in the field along with at least ten years’ experience in a senior management position overseeing and directing diverse operations aimed at achieving targets within specific deadlines. The qualifications for the other posts were equally exacting. Of course, as every Guyanese knows, it is the unwritten qualifications which will carry equal weight when the Commissioners come to make their choice, and some of those qualifications are of a political character.
As far as the technical responsibilities of the job go, judging from the ad these are onerous. The CEO implements all aspects of the Gecom’s operations and ensures that the results achieved are consistent with the laws of Guyana and the policies decided by the Commission. The appointee would also advise the Commission on policy matters and their implementation, as well as the interpretation of the relevant legislation. He or she would also be required to report on their application. And the duties do not end there. It is also the responsibility of the CEO to ensure that a comprehensive Voters Education Programme is conducted, in addition to periodically determining “Major Job Objectives” for department heads, and identifying and discussing with staff “Key Results Areas” in the determination of performance results.
Considering that the post of CEO of Gecom must be one of the most stressful in the land, citizens were probably a little surprised to learn from our newspaper report on Friday that twenty people had applied for the position. Some of the names are already well known, and have been associated with the Commission before, while two of the applications came from the anglophone Caribbean. As we reported, one of these was Mr Leslie Harrow of Jamaica, who has held various positions within the Electoral Commission of that country over a period of 18 years, and is currently the Director General of Jamaica’s Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management.
The other is Mr Eugene Petty from St Kitts, who is a former Elections Supervisor in that island as well as an experienced electoral observer, including as head of the OAS observer mission here in 2006.
The normal practice is for the Commissioners to interview all the applicants for the post of both a CEO and his or her deputy, score them, and make a shortlist before a report is submitted to the full Commission for a decision. On this occasion opposition appointed Commissioner Vincent Alexander told this newspaper that he and his fellow opposition Commissioners had proposed the setting up of an independent panel to undertake the interviews, following which they would submit a report to the Commission. Prima facie at least, this might have something to recommend it as an approach, provided, of course, that the full Commission can agree on its composition.
While there are some among the applicants who are hardly known and others where one wonders whether they meet the basic criteria set out in the vacancy ad, there are still others who are associated with controversy or have a political profile. While Commissioner Alexander declined to comment on any concerns he had about some of the applicants, he did say that Gecom had been under scrutiny in relation to corrupt practices, and that he “would find it difficult that persons who are before the court for such practices find themselves eligible for employment by Gecom.”
He also made reference to the eligibility of one applicant, viz, Mr Saphier Hussein, since he had contested for the presidency of the country. “Do you want somebody who has been a contestant to now become a part of the jury on these political matters?” Mr Alexander asked rhetorically.
But there are other controversial names, including that of Mr Omar Shariff, a former PS at the Ministry of the Presidency, who was fired in 2016 and was under investigation in relation to wealth he had allegedly acquired which was inconsistent with the level of his remuneration for his post. He was later taken to court after failing to comply with a High Court order.
As mentioned, there are some names on the list who are already, or have been, associated with Gecom. These include the Commission’s Information Technology Manager, Mr Aneal Giddings; the Assistant Registration Officer and former Ethnic Relations Commissioner, Mr Deodat Persaud; and the former Gecom Public Relations Officer, Mr Vishnu Persaud. For a brief period he also performed the duties of Deputy CEO, but lost out to Ms Roxanne Myers whose contract was recently terminated.
The best-known applicant in this group is Mr Gocool Boodoo, who was the CEO when the PPP/C was incorrectly given a seat which should have gone to the AFC in the 2006 election, and more notoriously attempted to award the government led by Mr Donald Ramotar 33 seats in Parliament when it only had 32. His miscalculation was picked up by Mr Alexander, which prevented the incorrect declaration of results. As a consequence of this his contract was not renewed in 2013, although the government then gave him a consultancy in the Ministry of Local Government.
The performances of the Gecom and ex-Gecom applicants will be well-known to the Commissioners, although whether that will be to the advantage of all of them remains to be seen. What is not known is what principles will apply to the consideration of the candidates outside of the formal requirements stated in the vacancy notice. Will a background of controversy disqualify them from consideration, for example? And will the entire Commission agree on a set of principles, or will they just plough ahead looking at each applicant individually?
Both sides in our interminable political spectacle have a history of preferring candidates in sensitive posts to be sympathetic to their viewpoint. One would like to believe that for the most part the electorate has a different attitude. Given the controversy which has swirled around Gecom as well as the post of CEO in the past, it would probably like to see someone appointed who is perceived as politically neutral in respect of their duties. Whether anyone in our context will ever be regarded as such by both sides is perhaps debatable, but if their background indicates they would apply the law, the rules and the policy handed down by the Commission without fear or favour, that theoretically should be good enough to satisfy the parties.
It might be added that it would help if they were endowed with a certain fortitude, since in our world political pressure can never be completely ruled out. They should certainly be someone of judgement, and ideally diplomatic skill given the factious nature of the circumstances. Whoever is chosen, what one wants is for the entire Commission to agree on the appointee. What one doesn’t want is one of these interminable wrangles with the Chair-man being left in the position of having to use her casting vote to bring the matter to a conclusion. This could open the decision to a lingering perception of political favouritism, whether or not that is the case in reality. Is it too much to ask that for once there is unanimity on the Commission?
