On December 10, 2021, we witnessed new and terminal heights in the travesty for and of the recruitment of GECOM’s CEO. Prior to now, we contended that the process was flawed in so far as persons whose preferences were made public prior to the shortlisting and the interviews of the eligible applicants are the said persons who were slated to participate as interviewers in the interviewing process. They indeed participated and for all intents and purposes merely cast votes.
In that circumstance, the Chairperson, who presided over the meeting in which Commissioners made their pleadings read a predetermined ruling. In other words, even as the pleadings were being presented, the Chair had already scripted her decision.
That only made the process more of a travesty, since the pleadings would not have been taken into consideration in the determination of her decision. That apart, in announcing her decision, no reference was made to the agreed qualification and assessment criteria required of the candidates.
Mr Harrow’s qualifications taken as a whole is by any standard superior to that of Mr Persaud. The Chairperson in announcing her decision stated her reliance on a testimonial provided by the previous Chairperson. That gives credence to the contention that the entire process was a travesty.
Mr. Persaud joined GECOM in 2001 as the Public Relations Officer at the invitation of Dr. Surujbally. The documentation Mr. Persaud provided confirmed what we the Commissioners know to be the reality, and that is that he functioned almost entirely as the “De facto Personal Assistant to the GECOM Chairman” and not as an independent professional manager.
As a consequence, the accumulation of the necessary amount of senior management experience, which was set as a requirement for the job, was not possible.
GECOM has once again defied good judgement and Good Governance in its decision-making process and has reneged on the opportunity to embrace a transparent process that could be embraced by fair-minded persons and a large portion of the Guyanese society.
We as Commissioners, who recognized GECOM’s dilemma and proposed the involvement of professional human resource practitioners in the process, are therefore distancing ourselves from the decision given our assessment of this travesty which has taken GECOM and the nation deeper into the arena of bad governance.
This certainly cannot enhance the Nation’s confidence in us and change their perception of bias in our decision making which is now most evident and blatant.
