GECOM has once again contrived to appoint a PPP/C preferred candidate to a senior position, to wit the position of DCEO.
In the first instance, when this position was originally advertised, Ms. Marshal was the only candidate that met the requirements, however she was not appointed. The position was readvertised. This resulted in Mr Giddings, who had not previously applied, applying.
Mr Gidddings at the time of application was over one year short of the required experience. The advertisement clearly stated: “At least five (5) years`s in Management of National elections and Election Systems is a prerequisite requirement”. Mr Giddings joined GECOM in June, 2018.and is still three months short of the required experience.
It should be noted that the interviews were inordinately delayed by approximately one year and it is now being argued that Mr Giddings has four years and nine months experience. As much as this is contrived, he still has not met the stipulated years of experience. No one in the process has contested or can contest that fact.
The decision to appoint him has been justified from the standpoint that he is a better candidate than Ms. Marshal. In other words, the criterion of experience has been thrown out of the window and the baseless ruling out of Ms. Marshal is the basis for choosing a candidate, Mr. Giddings, who clearly has not met the criterion.
It should be noted that this is the third time in succession that GECOM has contrived to appoint a candidate who has not met the mandatory requirement, to wit experience.
The current CEO did not have the required experience. All sorts of gymnastics about acting and being a note-taker at the highest level were concocted to argue that he had the required experience.
The position of ACEO was readvertised although at least four of the original applicants met the requirements and were shortlisted on both occasions, However, a retiree who had not previously applied was let in and given the job.
It is clear that the PPP/C appointed commissioners are on a mission to foist candidates of their choice on GECOM with the Chair being complicit.
These occurrences are at the pinnacle but a tip of the iceberg in relation to the management of human resources at GECOM.
These occurrences bring into question GECOM`s fitness for purpose as an impartial electoral body.