Dear Editor,
The following relates to the current imbroglio at the Guyana Public Service Cooperative Credit Union (GPSCCU) Ltd.
The requirement to hold an annual general meeting (AGM) of members is addressed by Regulation 14 of Chapter 88:01 of the Laws of Guyana. The holding of the 2022 AGM has been stoutly resisted by the majority of nine in the committee of management, from the time the issue was raised during the latter part of 2021. Regulation 14 states that the AGM of members SHALL be convened by the committee as soon as the report on the audit of the accounts of the registered society (in this case the GPSCCU Ltd) by the Commissioner (or Chief Cooperative Development Officer [CCDO]) or person authorized by him (her) is received by the committee. Please note that once the committee receives the report from the auditors the committee shall give no less than eight (8) days’ notice before any such meeting can be held.
Chairman Trevor L. Benn insisted that it was legally mandated by way of Reg 12 which vests the supreme authority in a registered society in the general meeting of the members. However, several delaying tactics were tried to push the AGM into April 2023, including but not limited to (i) attempting to have the funds for the meeting removed from the budget; and (ii) seeking ministerial intervention on March 30, 2022, to influence the CCDO to postpone the meeting. These were rebuffed by the Chairman (who cited the regulations), and the subject Minister who refused to be sucked into that issue.
The issue which was given to the public via the media as the reason for the motion of no confidence against the chairman namely that he wanted to be both chair and chief executive officer occurred as follows: It was I who moved the motion for both roles to reside in one person, which was seconded by Ms. Leslyn Noble. I provided reasons for the desirability of introducing such a management structure and there were no contending arguments except a blanket refusal to entertain the idea. I never heard Benn prior to, during, or at any time after that meeting, express a personal desire to hold the two positions. The matter was among those that the Minister raised at the March 30 meeting which suggests that he had been deliberately misinformed, since that matter was a non-issue, and advertisements for the position of CEO had been approved.
The purchase of the upper Hadfield Street property saw the Chairman recusing himself from involvement in the search for a building or land to construct a new office for the GPSCCU on the grounds that a member had made an indecent and immoral proposal to the effect that a property owner was offering an inducement of three million dollars if the credit union purchased a property on D’ Urban Street.
The search was left in the hands of a sub-committee which finally identified the upper Hadfield Street property with an asking price of one hundred and seventy-eight million dollars. At the insistence of Benn the sub-committee was able to negotiate the price downwards by twenty-four million dollars. The committee approved the purchase of the property by a majority vote of nine in favour with one abstention. One member subsequently withdrew support for the decision.
The recruitment and appointment of the CEO was an acrimonious issue. The interviewing panel comprised of members of the Admin and HR sub-committee at the April 9, 2022 statutory meeting recommended a candidate as the suitable person to fill the position. The chairman requested the sub-committee to submit a report
supporting the recommendation to such a senior post. This was refused on the grounds that the Chairman was questioning the integrity of the panel despite his protestations to the contrary;
A motion to accept the recommendation was moved by a member and seconded and I who had been left to chair the meeting after the Chairman had excused himself, allowed a vote on the motion. I supported the motion because I am aware that under Roberts Rules governing meetings that I had the prerogative to ask for a review of a decision which I had supported, and which could not be possible if I had voted against it. I exercised that prerogative by inviting the committee to an emergency meeting to resolve the matter. Amidst heckling and the display of placards with the slogans like “Majority Rules”, I was able to identify the points which the report should cover and adjourned the meeting. The report was never submitted. I continue to hold the view that the panel was singularly unprepared, unable and unwilling to prepare the type of report required in the appointment of someone to such a senior level.
The meeting at which Mr. Trevor L. Benn was deposed was called ostensibly to deal with “allegations against the credit union.” I am still unaware of what those allegations against the credit union are. However, I am advised that two members present at that meeting cautioned against that intemperate and irrational move. Benn was not notified of any allegation(s)/charge(s) against him. He was not made aware of: (i) the time, place and nature of any hearing; (ii) the legal authority/rule under which the hearing was to be held; (iii) statement(s) of specific charge(s)/grounds and proposed action(s)/grounds which he was to meet.
Furthermore, he was denied the right of notice and as such was prevented from having sufficient information and material to enable him to put up an effective defence. Thus he was denied his rights including the right to (i) know the evidence against him; (ii) hear the presentation of the case and evidence; and (iii) rebut the adverse evidence.
Editor, at the very least, any procedure involving a fair hearing and due process ought to have been a hearing where: (i) The relevant evidence would have been submitted by his accuser(s); (ii) members of the committee would have been made aware of the evidence submitted; (iii) witnesses would have been examined; (iv) evidence, comments and arguments would have been heard on the matter; (v) Benn would have been given the opportunity to provide a written explanation(s) after receiving all material from his accuser(s); and (vi) he could have exercised his prerogative to use the assistance of a lawyer or other representative.
None of the foregoing happened. Mr. Benn’s inalienable rights were violated by an arbitrary and immoral no-confidence motion which flies in the face of his reasonable expectation of natural justice. He ought to have been given an opportunity to know what were the accusations/allegations levelled against him. He ought to have been given an opportunity to respond, and to be heard before the Committee. These basic tenets of natural justice were never applied.
A petition by members of the credit union pursuant to Regulation 16 of the Cooperative Societies Regulations demanded inter alia that a special general meeting of the GPSCCU be convened within 14 days of receipt of the demand as stipulated by the said regulation. On Friday May 13, 2022, the petition was delivered to the registered address of the society addressed to the Secretary of the committee of management and a copy left for me in my capacity as acting Chairman at the time.
I convened an emergency meeting stating that the purpose was to discuss the petition. The only committee member in attendance apart from me was Mr. Benn. I wrote the Secretary advising her that in light of the petition arrangements must be commenced to hold the meeting. The CEO was instructed by copy to start the process. To date nothing has been done according to my instructions. I was thus forced to carry out my duty as Chair in compliance with the mandate of Regulation 16, to cause to be published a notice convening a special general members meeting for June 25, 2022.
Editor I have taken up enough of your space and leave the public to arrive at their conclusions.
Yours faithfully!
Patrick E. Mentore
Committee of Management
GPSCCU Ltd.
