The Guyana Public Service Co-operative Credit Union (GPSCCU) Interim Management Committee was yesterday forced to dissolve its planned General Meeting after a dismal turnout of members led to a lack of a quorum.
“This meeting convened on 8hrs and dissolved at 9:10 hours today October, 24th 2022, for lack of quorum,” Chairman and head of the Committee, Karen Van Sluytman-Corbin told members at the Central High School, being the venue of the meeting. Union Secretary, Gillian Pollard, reported that as of 2020, the GPSCCU had 23,033 members and that a quorum required for the meeting to proceed, 5728 members needed to be present. Pollard reported that 53 persons had registered at the location and 96 online. “At this time, Madam Chair, our online registration amounts to 96 and our in-person registration amounts to 53,” she said.
Thanking supporters for not showing up as he had urged, former Chairperson and front runner for the position, Trevor Benn, yesterday asked members to, “remain calm and continue to be patient” as they await the November 7th hearing of the court, for a way forward. “I am asking them to be patient and allow the Court to do its work and make decisions on the way forward,” Benn said. “Be patient but mobilize. We will continue to be in touch with our members and supporters to know what is happening so that when we have some clarity from the court, we can advise,” he added.
The team led by Benn had urged members to boycott the meeting on the principle that the General Meeting was announced without an agenda. “We are asking our members not to show up at the meeting (today) because of the breaches. And we are confident that based on the communication from the judge, to the lawyers associated with this case, that the judge is fully aware of the breaches and he is prepared to act on them at the appropriate time,” Benn said during a virtual press conference. To keep the peace and also not to give anyone cause or reason to say that the meeting was disrupted or had a quorum, Benn told members to stay away.
Last month, High Court Judge, Navindra Singh, declared that members of the GPSCCU were entitled to demand a special general meeting and refuted arguments of the union’s management committee that the request constituted a dispute. The case involved three members of the GPSCCU who had petitioned the Court for declarations that Benn and Patrick Mentore were the credit union’s duly elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman, and that a Special General Meeting of Members, which had originally been scheduled for June 25th, 2022, be allowed.
With time running out, the Interim Management Committee of the GPSCCU this month gave notice that it will convene a special general meeting on October 24th. But while the announcement gave a notice of the meeting being called, the announcement did not provide an agenda nor did it state if elections would be held. Evident at the meeting’s venue yesterday were six Guyana Elections Commission ballot boxes, all laid out on desks, thus reinforcing the observation that the IMC came prepared to hold elections.
Van Sluytman-Corbin, nevertheless, was adamant that she complied with the Court’s orders and her job was done. When asked what the next step was, Van Sluytman-Corbin replied, “Me and my directors will engage our members informally. The formal part has been dissolved, we will engage them informally so that we [could] bring them up to date on what has developed; the developments of this impasse.” When asked if the meeting was dissolved for a lack of a quorum and if another meeting will be called, Van Sluytman-Corbin again replied, “Whoever wish to bring that, they will have to bring that. We have complied with an order issued by the court.”
However, Benn said that Van Sluytman-Corbin was being disingenuous as he believes there were many aspects of the ruling that were not complied with. He was nevertheless optimistic that when both sides go to court on November 7th, the Judge will determine. “They did not comply with the order of the court. The order of court was very clear. The members who went to the court, asked for a number of things in a document they submitted…the court agreed with the applicants and said that they, the [IMC] must implement them as requested. They were not,” Benn said.
