Dear Editor,
Though belated, it would be remiss of me not to respond to Dr. Bisram`s latest epistle on the Vishnu Persaud appointment. May I refer to my response as gospel, albeit in letter form, since it does two things: it corrects inaccuracies in Bisram`s letter and refutes his contentions. It is ironical that my previous letter on this matter is referred to as ‘raving and ranting’ but attracts a response of approximately seven columns from Dr. Vishnu Bisram. I do not intend, in my point by point response, to be equally verbose. Firstly, may I advise Dr. Bisram, that I reserve the right to be constructively critical of the Chairperson. I do not regard it as an attack on her, and will, whenever necessary, hold the Chair or anyone accountable, for their decisions and/or actions. Accountability is one of the elements of Good Governance, which we should all embrace. The Chair is not exempted.
I never argued that Mr. Persaud did not have the required academic qualifications for the job. What I argued is that his qualification was inferior to his competitor`s, and that in a competitive process, the classification of the qualifications have to be taken into consideration, especially when values are ostensibly attributed to qualifications in the evaluation process. That is one way to determine who is more ‘academically’ qualified for the job and is a ‘gold standard’ in job interviews. It should be noted that my contention was not limited to academic qualifications. I dealt with procedural and substantive flaws. Bisram`s contention that GECOM ‘has a process which has to be followed’, is as flawed as GECOM`s process. GECOM refused to use an instrument as the basis for evaluation. It reduced its instrument to the status of a guideline, and allowed for voting to be the basis of the determination, albeit there were oral presentations. In that circumstance, the Chairperson in delivering her “Ruling”, made absolutely no reference to, considered, nor compared the applicants` academic qualifications, although in the guidelines, the highest value was attributed to qualifications.
However, she contended that a testimonial, a document not listed for consideration in the ‘guideline’, and not normally considered until the quantitative evaluation is completed, was a major plank on which she premised her “Ruling”. To wit, that testimonial should not have been considered, since the author was the one who brought Mr. Persaud to the organization, on invitation, where he served as his ‘de facto personal assistant’, and was chaperoned by him into the position of Deputy Chief Election Officer by deeming a level 5 qualification to be equivalent to a bachelor`s degree, when in fact, the UK Qualifications Framework, which determines those matters, clearly states that level 5 is not equivalent to a bachelor`s degree. Most egregious was the fact that the ‘Ruling’ was given, without pause, after the presentations of the Commissioners, but purported to have taken those presentations into consideration. Dr. Bisram also
misrepresented the Judgment in the Persaud vs. Alexander law suit. The Court never adjudicated on Vishnu`s qualification. It adjudicated on whether I had fingered Mr. Persaud as misrepresenting his qualification. I never did, but his qualification in 2014 was misrepresented as I have herein outlined. The award to which Dr. Bisram refers, is another instance of misrepresentation, by him. He grossly overstates the award granted by the Judge, suffice to say that it has been appealed.
Let`s assume that Dr. Bisram is right that I turned a blind eye to previous aberrations at GECOM, is that justification for my now valid contentions to be disregarded? I noted his implicit acknowledgement of the aberrations which I have identified, and bring to his attention, that the employment of the former Legal Officer was facilitated by the Commission`s 4 to 3 vote not to employ the best candidate. The Opposition appointed Commissioners were not party to that aberration. His point on aberrations is irrelevant in his attempt to justify the employment of Vishnu Persaud. Dr. Bisram also misrepresents the conclusion of the Ethnic Relations Commission on the complaint of Ethnic Discrimination in relation to Vishnu`s non-employment. The Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) concluded inter alia that: “There are no institutional rules or practices in GECOM which allows for ethnic discrimination in hiring.” “The six Commissioners are all vigilant to ensure that no such discrimination can be practiced without challenge.” “…, from the material placed before us, it cannot be said that there has been any evidence of deliberate hiring of Guyanese of one ethnicity rather than of another.”
Bisram attributes a contrary conclusion to the ERC. His misrepresentation also extends to his contention that Ms. Myers was hired before a report on Persaud`s qualification was submitted. There was no such situation. The fact of the matter is that Myers and Persaud both presented documented evidence of their degrees which clearly showed that Ms. Myers` degree was of a far higher classification. Finally, any argument that GECOM could not engage Human Resource professionals in its recruitment process is ill-founded. It was never intended for GECOM to give up its authority. The intention was for professionals to be involved in the process, in a manner that would lend confidence to the process, with the Commission retaining ultimate responsibility for the appointments. Instead, GECOM employed a contrived system as illustrated herein, which did not provide for Good Governance practices such as openness, transparency and accountability, rather it facilitated bias and other anomalies.
No adherent of Good Governance or human resource professional would associate himself or herself with what GECOM embraced as a recruitment process. It was procedurally, and substantively flawed, and produced a flawed outcome which was conveniently embraced by the likes of Dr. Vishnu Bisram, on a fallacious premise as herein proven.
Sincerely,
Vincent Alexander
GECOM Commissioner
