Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
Dear Editor:
Permit me a few lines hereunder to respond to a disingenuous missive titled, “Credibility of the GPA severely harmed,” which was authored by Neil Marks on 16th May 2023.
In his preposterously sorrowful plea, Marks, a wolf in sheep’s clothing with all the primal opportunistic and predatory outfittings, attempted once more to bamboozle the general public into believing that he possesses a character in which decency and accountability reside, and that but for the underhanded manoeuvering of the GPA’s executive, he would have secured its presidency outright. However, his orchestrated plot and crafted narrative could not have been further from the truth in relation to the entire affair. And, it is for this reason, which he too recognises as important for the record, that the veracity of his most outstanding claims must now be laid bare in the public domain.
In his letter, Marks makes several indictments against the executive of the GPA, of which the most serious is that he was disenfranchised by the failure of the GPA to facilitate the automatic registration of applicants on the day of the elections. The inherent absurdity of this claim seems to have been lost only on Marks, who fails to see how the automatic registration of applicants on the day of elections, for the sole purpose of expediting votes, risks impeaching the democratic processes of the GPA. Still worse is the fib he tells, when he suggests that this has been customary in past elections.
Certainly, while it can be attested that members who fell into default over dues were allowed to clear them on the day of the election and thereafter exercise their right to vote, it has never been suggested that the GPA’s committee for the scrutinising applicants should abdicate its duty on the day of the election to facilitate expedient voting. The sheer ludicrousness of this claim undergirds its rightful incredulity.
As a former president of the GPA, Marks is intimately aware that the process of admission to the GPA entails the scrutinising of applications by a select committee that may, after a thorough investigation and receipt of a recommendation endorsing the application by a media house, move to admit an applicant. To do that which Marks has suggested would have undoubtedly resulted in a padded list, which is the very thing that he purports to be the cause of his immense shame and disgrace. It is needless to say that his claim is also false in so far as he states that during the outreach efforts that preceded the elections, the admission process started and ended with the secretary, Ms Svetlana Marshall.
Secondly, he suggests that the GPA had theretofore never hosted a contentious election for its presidency, and therefore, it was something of a novelty for a challenger, as he was, to demand a list of electors. Here again, however, while the former is patently false, the latter is true but wholly without context. The GPA, in fact, boasts a healthy democratic tradition in which its elections have been and are hotly contested. However, it is important to note his curious omission to mention that a candidate only becomes seized of an interest in the electoral race following his nomination on elections day by his colleagues on the floor.
On occasions, this process has led to uncontested races, whereupon it is recognised by hopeful candidates that a competitor enjoys the overwhelming support of the membership. This though is not always the case. Properly contextualised then, it is understandable why Marks’ demand for a list of electors may have been reasonably met with bewilderment at his sense of entitlement and suspicion. The moral rightfulness of his suggestion that he could also exceptionally demand an urgent meeting with the executive committee of the GPA as a candidate with an interest in the electoral race is also equally misplaced, as he could have had no such interest prior to being nominated.
The same must be said about the interest of those purported media houses that he claims were invested enough in the management affairs of the GPA to mount a petition. An interesting observation that is worth noting here is his suggestion that fault for the non-registration of qualifying journalists falls at the feet of the GPA because it refused to grant automatic admission, and not in the inhospitable political climate where the reality of victimisation is particularly dissuasive.
Truthfully, this consideration alone provides a justifiable rationale for the decision of the GPA to withhold its list of electors until it was critically required. That said, if it is true that Marks is interested in accountability, fairness and decency, then he should willingly provide answers to certain obscurities that underlie the sense of distrust now felt by his colleagues and made abundantly clear in his stinging defeat.
First, he would do well to disabuse the senses of his colleagues that there was something nefarious about the mysterious thievery of GPA funds aboard the minibus, which he thereafter failed to promptly report to the Guyana Police Force while sitting as president of the GPA.
Second, he should disclose the publicity of the offer and his exceptional qualities which merited his award of a government scholarship to pursue academic studies in the UK at the expense of taxpayers.
Third, and especially in the interest of independence, he should disclose his credentials and professional experience that supported his concurrent assumption of duties at the Guyanese High Commission to the UK.
Fourth, he should disclose the nature and scope of services that he renders and has rendered to Mrs Ali and the Office of The First Lady.
Fifth, he should confirm whether or not he was still in the employ of News Room at the material date by which the correspondence moved from the Guyanese High Commission to request the termination of a journalist’s accreditation for the coverage of the Commonwealth Games, and whether or not he perceived that this might have engendered a conflict of interest in so far as it was the exercise of governmental authority to unfairly confer a benefit on the enterprise of News Room.
Sixth, he should disclose whether or not his sudden campaign, the well-timed but ultimately misconceived application by the Guyanese critics and the incessant mudslinging in the lead-up to the GPA’s elections were part and parcel to a state-sponsored plan of action.
Seventh, he should offer commentary on his conduct towards Ms Marshall on the day of the election, and frankly assess how his lack of congeniality and decency towards his female counterparts (regrettably on Mother’s Day) may have reduced the confidence of the general membership in his ability to lead the GPA again.
Eighth, he should disclose whether or not he remains in the employ of Reuters as a correspondent for Guyana, and if not, whether this relationship may have been affected by a perception of skewed reporting in favour of the Government. Ninth and finally, he should disclose the disaggregated sums that he makes from all his undertakings so that it could be confirmed by the GPA that he still gains a substantial portion of his income from the conduct of his journalistic enterprise, and therefore can retain his membership!
Yours sincerely,
Junior Paul Alleyne
