Rift widens between former GPHC Chairman and Health Minister

Former Chairman of the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC) Board of Directors, Dr Carl ‘Max’ Hanoman, has lashed out at Public Health Minister Dr George Norton, accusing him of wanting to micro-manage the corporation. However, in his defence, the Minister posited that he will not sit idly while nothing is being done to improve the public health sector.

The allegation against Dr Norton came one day after the former Chairman received a letter from Permanent Secretary of the Public Health Ministry, Trevor Thomas, on Monday stating that the GPHC Board is dissolved as of November 30, 2016. The letter was dated November29, 2016.

Speaking at a press conference from his Private Practice office on Brickdam on Tuesday, Dr Hanoman told reporters that he was initially appointed for a three-year tenure, with each Board position up for renewal at the end of every November.

However, he stated that instead of his position being renewed, the entire board was dissolved; a move which he said was made by the Health Minister in order to micro-manage the GHPC.

“When I came to the Board, I thought it was an autonomous, independent board… (But) I realised overtime that the hospital corporation could not be autonomous and independent. The decision-making process was under the thumbs of the Minister of Health,” Hanoman posited.

According to the former chairman, the rift between him and Dr Norton came about after the Board, under his chairmanship, took a decision to reinstate GPHC Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Michael Khan who was initially sent on administrative leave pending a probe at the medical facility. Khan is currently on a second bout of administrative leave which runs until July 2017.

Dr Hanoman explained that after receiving the findings of the investigations, the Board met with Christopher Ram, who conducted the probe, and it was noted that nothing substantively incriminating was found against Khan, hence the decision was taken to have him returned, something which he claimed the Health Minister was not in favour of.

The former chairman added that he reinstated Khan as CEO because the GPHC was without any good governance and that he also needed assistance with the University of Guyana medical accreditation process, which Khan worked on facilitating under his direction. However, in the end Dr Hanoman said the CEO was once again sent on administrative leave.

Moreover, the former GPHC Chairman went on to outline several other instances where the Minister would attempt to “micro-manage” the corporation. In fact, he rubbished reports that it was him who sent Director of Nursing Services (Matron), Collene Hicks, on administrative leave back in July. He disclosed that it was the Health Minister who gave the directive for that action to be taken.

On the other hand, the former GPHC Chairman accused Dr Norton of stalling the appointment process of Deputy CEO, for which the Board under his chairmanship had already shortlisted three candidates for the position and submitted same to the President and other Government Ministers.

Dr Hanoman claimed that the Minister wants to put his own people in the position, since he received a letter from Dr Norton last week saying that the new board should make the appointment.

However, in response to the allegations made by the former GPHC Chairman, Dr Norton in a brief interview with this newspaper on Wednesday pointed out that he is not going to sit idly and wait for things to be done or actions to be taken.

“We’ve got a five-year term to change things around and many times we have the same players around who don’t get things done. If I should sit in my office and hope that all the officers would perform the way I want them to, I might be disappointed. Experience has told me that I’ve got to get up and do things, and I won’t mind doing so if it means things will be get done,” he noted.

The Public Health Minister went on to explain that the board was not dissolved, but rather its life had come to an end. He sought to clarify that the term of the Board was one-year and not three as was suggested by Dr Hanoman.