The Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) has noted with concern and alarm the report in the Stabroek Newspaper of July 18, 2010 that the National Assembly had approved the appointment of Mr. Carvil Duncan and Mr. Cecil Seepersaud to membership of the Public Service Commission. This was done after the 9th report of the Committee on Appointment dealing with the matter, was adopted.

The GPSU also notes that the report was adopted without the support of the main opposition party, PNCR–1G, whose member speaking on its behalf told the House that the PNCR–1G, was convinced that the Committee on Appointment was ‘an exercise of futility’ since the Government always had its way in this matter by imposing its majority on such issues.

As in the past, the GPSU is troubled by the fact that although it is numbered among the bodies purportedly consulted by the Committee on Appointment, its nominees, namely Mrs. Vera Naughton and Mr. Charles Baker have once more not found favour with the Committee.

On analysis, it is difficult to understand how the Committee could have favoured Mr. Carvil Duncan – General Secretary of the Guyana Labour Union (GLU) and President of FITUG; and Mr. Cecil Seepersaud – a nominee of the Guyana Public Service Senior Staff Association (GPSSSA), which was created and registered in 2002, the year before the amendment to the Constitution in 2003. This provided the opportunity for procedures which previously existedto be changed, undermined and manipulated in constituting the Public Service Commission to the exclusion of the GPSU from its membership.

It is also to be noted that the GLU was not previously recognized or consulted in constituting the membership of PSC prior to the amendment to the Constitution in 2003. It is therefore our strong view that both the GLU and the GPSSSA were specifically injected into the process for convenience with the intention of undermining the position and status of the GPSU, in keeping with the ulterior and in our opinion unprincipled posture of the Government.

In this respect, it is common knowledge that neither Duncan nor Seepersaud have affiliations with organisations that could have reasonably entitled them, within the terms of Article 200 (1) (b) of the Constitution of Guyana, to fall under the description of bodies appearing “…to represent public officers or classes of public officers”. It is beyond doubt that the GPSU is the only body among those ostensibly “consulted” with a warrant in the form of a Certificate of Recognition from the Trade Union Recognition and Certification Board, constituted under Act No. 33 of 1997 (Trade Union Recognition Act) for the purposes set out under Part III of the said Act. In effect, the GPSU is the only Union which has collective bargaining rights with the Government of Guyana Public Service Management; that is to say “workers in the Public Service appointed by the Public Service Commission”.

In the circumstances, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that GPSU’s exclusion from representation on the Public Service Commission (PSC) is a deliberate and contrived political act. This is particularly so since the Union in its evolution from its founding in 1923 has always enjoyed the status of the legitimate representative of public servants. However, over time the principles of independence and impartiality of the PSC have since its founding in 1953 been eroded and undermined by political and partisan considerations. It is in this light that we view the clear attempt at this time to exclude the GPSU from representation on the PSC. Additionally, the policy being pursued by the political directorate is obvious. The intention is to seek to control and subordinate institutions which under the Constitution are designed to be “neutral zones” beyond the control of politicians. Thus, the tendency to have appointed to such institutions, persons who are either politically affiliated to those in control of the state machinery or who are sympathetically disposed to the political order. Where it is not possible for control to be exercised over such institutions or is difficult, a policy is adopted of leaving them in suspended animation as is the case of the Public Services Appellate Tribunal.

In the circumstances, we feel strongly that only the myopic or one blinded by prejudice would consider the processes adopted by the Committee on Appointments as fair and reasonable as is the view articulated by Ms. Sheila Holder – Member of Parliament of the Alliance for Change and also member of the Committee on Appointments. In this respect, Ms. Holder is reported as stating that “her party was in favour of the report being adopted”. Additionally, she stated “that it is important to remember that the Constitution speaks of the independence of all persons who sit on the Commission and opined that if this is observed there shouldn’t be any real problems”. To similar effect were the assertions of the Minister of Health, Dr. Leslie Ramsammy, who stated that “the nominees were selected via a consultative process and stressed that it was not always possible to have a consensus”. The Chairman of the Committee of Appointments Ms. Gail Teixeira was also reported as stating that “while appreciating the support of the Alliance for Change, accused Backer of childish behavior”.

The GPSU rejects the foregoing views, if only because it is strongly convinced that there was no proper or fair consultation by the Committee on Appointments in arriving at its choice of persons to be appointed as members of the PSC. Considerations of partisanship, lack of independence and bias among the membership of Committee as constituted apart, it is our position that although the mandate of the Committee required that the organizations among which the GPSU was listed to be consulted, we assert without any fear of contradiction that the GPSU was not involved in any consultation with the Committee. Other than receiving a letter dated March 22, 2010 from the Clerk of the National Assembly, requesting nomination of members to the Public Service Commission in accordance with Article 200 of the Constitution, which was responded to by submitting the names of its aforementioned nominees on April 12, 2010, there was no further interaction between the GPSU and the Committee. In this respect, it is to be noted that the letter from the Clerk of the National Assembly specifically stated that “in a motion passed at its 9th sitting on May 8, 2003, entrusted the following functions to the Standing Committee on  Appointments, established by Article 119C of the Constitution:

1. Indentifying the appropriate bodies for consultation
2. Conducting the necessary consultation with them and;
3. Receiving nomination or nominations from them in accordance with article 200 (1) (b)”.

In the view of the GPSU, there is a clear difference between a mere request for a nominee or nominees from a listed organization, and involving that organisation in a meaningful consultation process. According to respected authority, consultation “requires that the person or body consulted should be given a reasonably ample and sufficient opportunity to state their views…”. Further, “it is not satisfied if it is treated as a mere opportunity to make ineffective representations”. Indeed, the meaningfulness of consultation has historically been a bone of contention in the Guyanese context with the result that the Constitution of Guyana, at Article 232, now specifically states that “consultation” or “meaningful consultation” means the person or entity responsible for seeking consultation shall –

• identify the persons or entities to be consulted and specify to them in writing the subject of the consultation and an intended date for the decision on the subject of consultation;
• ensure that each person or entity to be consulted is afforded a reasonable opportunity to express a considered opinion on the subject of the consultation; and 
• cause to be prepared and archived a written record of the consultation and circulate the decision to each of the persons or entities consulted”

In all of this we are greatly disappointed that under existing arrangements and practice, there is such stark departure from fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the laws of Guyana, embodying as they do clear principles and guidelines of processes and procedures to be followed and respected in such matters. Our concern on this, as indeed other occasions, is the injustice resulting from ignoring and overlooking the GPSU in a meaningful role in the activities of the PSC, its role and status and its bona fides in the relationship between the public employer and its employees, notwithstanding.

It is for this reason that we advocate amendment to the Constitution to redress the patent injustice inherent in the processes and procedures now followed in constituting the membership of the Public Service Commission. There is a crying need for restoration of equity and fairness in the system in order to ensure that public servants falling under the jurisdiction of the PSC are treated fairly and equitably. Under current arrangements this feature is noticeably absent, resulting in little or no confidence that public servants are guaranteed fair treatment and the benefits of the rule of law.