Serious questions remain for GECOM on what took place on Nomination Day

Dear Editor,
In relation to matters of expenditure of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) — and in particular the queries regarding voters’ education activities, which are woefully inadequate — a proposal should have been submitted to GECOM for approval.
Further, the CEO, Mr. Lowenfield, MUST be able to provide timely information in respect to the execution of tenders and who were the evaluators. He should also provide copies of the evaluation report, substantiate the position of the National Procurement & Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) or Cabinet, and state whether mobilisation was paid in advance and a performance bond was established.
The Auditor General’s report made reference, and there were serious questions in respect to the millions of dollars that were spent on voters’ education. Some of the questions were related to where, when and how the public relations company receive the contract. It is more serious that when the issue was raised about voters’ education, Lowenfield first claimed ignorance and pretended that he was unaware of what is happening. However, he admitted that he “instructed that this be done, especially in the hinterland and far-flung areas, but that he had no knowledge if had been done”. This is indeed a very serious matter!
The fact is that the Commissioners are part of the overall management of GECOM, and the law and procedures of the organisation allow for establishment of a Finance Sub-Committee, approved by the Chairman, which must report at the meetings of the Commission. Relative, therefore, are the following queries: Who are the Commissioners that currently constitute this Sub-Committee? And why is what are required and necessary so difficult to be obtained by Commissioners?
Unequivocally, if the management is not submitting financial information, the Commissioners should not sign off on any request for approval. It is recalled that, only recently, ‘selected’ members of the Board of Directors of the Guyana Development Board were charged and placed before the courts for issues related to the activities of the organisation. It cannot be that the system is designed to work in one way for a particular set of people, and blatantly discriminate against another.
The fact is that there are serious questions for many Returning Officers and GECOM Commissioners to answer regarding what took place on Nomination Day. It is therefore very worrying that Lowenfield refuses to share the list of duties and responsibilities of the ROs and Presiding Officers. It is imperative that the GECOM Commissioners demand the list of duties of all the GECOM staff members, and a proper account from the public relations firm that is hired to do what is supposed to be done.
While there are serious concerns about how staff members are being employed at GECOM, concerned citizens are more interested in the lavish spending and high life of some GECOM staff members. It is time the Auditor General tell the public what is happening at GECOM in respect to the questionable hundreds of millions of dollars of excessive spending.
Further, what is the DPP doing about the matter? Were the documents forwarded to the DPP’s Chambers?
In view of the attitude and behaviour of the Chief Elections Officer and his accommodation by the ‘big four’ in the Secretariat, there absolutely is neither trust nor confidence in what GECOM is doing. The time is most opportune for the nation to rise up against this blatant disregard by GECOM, and its lack of accountability and transparency in implementing policies.
While this is a constitutional agency, there must be public accountability for taxpayers’ money, and to the people. Every action must be taken to ensure that the rights of citizens are not trampled upon via Lowenfield’s Town Clerk’s approach, and apparent eroding grey matter of the Chairman.
Sincerely,
Neil Kumar