The ongoing feud in the Guyana Public Service Co-operative Credit Union (GPSCCU) has landed in the High Court, which three members have petitioned for declarations that Trevor Benn and Patrick Mentore are the union’s duly elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively, and that a Special General Meeting of Mem-bers be allowed for June 25, 2022.
After seeking to remove Benn, the management committee of the credit union itself came under pressure several weeks ago when over 375 members moved for the removal of the entire body and the announcement of new elections within 14 days. That number has now increased to nearly 2,000.
The committee and its members have been at loggerheads over a No-Confidence Motion the committee said it brought against Benn.
By way of a fixed date application (FDA), union members Mehalai McAlmont, Keith Marks and Natasha Durant-Clements have now moved to the High Court seeking to have Benn, Mentore and other “duly” elected members of the management committee be so recognised.
Their challenge comes on the heels of one faction of the union advertising in the press on Sunday to object to a Special General Meeting of Members being called for June 25 by what is now being described a rival faction headed by Benn.
“Please be advised that the Notice for the Special General Meeting dated May 18, 2022 is null and void. A meeting was held dated June 2, 2022 with all twelve (12) Members of the Committee of Manage-ment and it was agreed that the said Notice did not meet the necessary criteria for a Special General Meeting of the members,” the advertisement said.
The ad, in which Karen Vansluytman-Corbin is identified as Chairman of the Committee of Management of the credit union, went on to assert that “The said Special General Meeting was not sanctioned by the Department of Cooperatives, Ministry of Labour and therefore the (GPSCCU) wishes to advise its membership that the said Notice was not placed by or on behalf of the Credit Union.”
Mc Almont, Marks and Clements in their action are seeking a declaration, however, that a Special General Meeting of a Registered Society “can be convened at any time” by the Chairman of the Com-mittee of Management, and members of the Society, pursuant to Regulation 16 of the Co-operative Societies Regulations.
They are contending that where 25 or more members of a Registered Society which they say consists of more than one hundred Members demand a Special General Meeting of the Registered Society, then “it shall be the duty of the Chairman of the Commit-tee of Management to convene such a Meeting giving eight days’ notice,” pursuant to Regulation 16.
Against this background, they are asking the court to grant a declaration that a petition signed by over 200 members of the GPSCCU, containing the objectives of the proposed Meeting is “lawful and valid,” and that the holding of that meeting, which has been set for June 25, is also “legal and valid” pursuant to Regulation 16.
According to the applicants, Mentore, “in his capacity as the Vice-Chair-man of the Committee of Management of the Guyana Public Service Co-operative Credit Union…performing the duties of Chairman can convene a Special General Meeting of the Society,” and they are seeking a declaration to this effect.
In the advertisement placed over the weekend, Vansluytman-Corbin, who is listed among the respondents in the court action, said the Committee of Management wished to advise that an Annual General Meeting shall be convened in accordance with the Co-operative Societies Act Regulation 14 as soon as the necessary requirements are met to facilitate such a meeting, and that members will be notified of an appropriate date.
Applicants McAlmont, Marks and Durant-Clements are asking the court, however, to order the respondents to forthwith put all necessary arrangements in place to give effect to the meeting slated for June 25.
Their contention is that the respondents “have clearly indicated their intention not to comply with the law that requires” them to hold the Special General Meeting on June 25 in accordance with what they say is a decision of the Vice Chairman.
They argue, too, that as time continues to elapse, the respondents continue to maintain their “disregard” for the rights of the members and as such unless ordered by the court, the meeting will not be held on June 25.
Finally, they express the view that if the respondents do not act in accordance with the Petition, then members would lose their right to petition for a Special General Meeting, thus rendering that Petition nugatory; and the respondents will not be accountable to the members of the Co-operative Society.
The applicants are being represented by Roysdale Forde SC.
In addition to Vansluytman-Corbin, the respondents listed in the action are Benn and Mentore; along with elected members of the management committee—Gillian Pollard, Rajdai Jagarnauth, Leslyn Noble, Ruth Howard, Saskia Eastman-Onwuzirike, Charles Ogle, Arthur Gibbs, Kirwyn Mars, Jermain Hermanstyne and Adeola Griffith.
The Guyana Public Service Co-operative Credit Union Ltd., has also been listed as a respondent.
With thousands of members and in control of a large amount of money, the credit union has become embroiled in a bitter power struggle. The most recent manifestation of the infighting was the replacement by the management committee of Vice-Chair Mentore, with one of their own. This enabled the unanimous decision referred to by Vansluytman-Corbin, ruling that the notice for the June 25th meeting was null and void.
Mentore had complied with request from members and given notice that the Special General Meeting, which would include electing a new Committee, would be held on June 25.
It was under Mentore, who was then acting as Chair, that members moved to have a Special General Meeting called on June 25th so that they could remove the entire committee, having stated that they had no confidence in it.
“Pursuant to Regulation 16 of the Co-operatives Societies Regulations, Cap 88:01, I hereby give notice that a special General Meeting… will be held on Saturday June 25th 2022 at 10:00hrs …,” that notice stated, informing that motions to be brought before the meeting must be submitted to the Secretary of the Committee, two days before.
The actions of the committee triggered the ire of members, who voiced their disquiet, accusing the committee of being dictatorial.
