I wish to respond to a letter captioned “What is your beef, Mr. Deputy Police Commissioner?” written by Mr. Leroy Smith, one of your reporters, and published in Sunday edition of the Chronicle Newspaper dated September 16, 2012. I trust that you will, on the premise of fairness, see it just to publish my response as well.

For the benefit of the readers who did not read the article to which I refer, Mr. Smith complained that I hung up my mobile phone on all occasions when he called me for information on articles he is writing for the Guyana Chronicle. He proceeded, in the article, to judge me as being unprofessional and unfit for the office I hold.

I have to assume Mr. Editor given the fact that you published the letter that it reflects your values and that of the Guyana Chronicle and on that premise I highlight the following issues:

(1) I thought that as an editor publishing a judgment you would have also published the credentials of the judge. Certainly, with Mr. Smith operating within your employ, you would be privy to his qualifications that would allow him to question the ability of the duly authorised persons that appointed me. I trust, Mr. Editor, that you will find it fitting, given that it is being drawn to your attention that due diligence was not done to have it included in the publication, to publish those qualifications now.

It still boggles my mind how a person/public officer’s refusal to speak to a reporter when called on his mobile phone can make him unfit to hold his office. Maybe Mr. Editor, you can enlighten me with your wisdom.

(2) Another issue Mr. Editor is that this is a case of a subordinate approaching you with an explanation for being unable to do the job he was so paid to do and expressing frustration over his failed attempt. Instead of guiding, coaching and advising him on available options, what did you do? You published his weakness exposing it to everyone. You publish his inability to get information to write the article. Maybe it is your staff retention strategy. Certainly, he could not have expected that persons not within the employ of Guyana Chronicle will do his job. It is attitudes like this from management that determines market share of a business and maybe Mr. Editor you need to introspect.

(3) The other issue Mr. Editor dwells on honesty/ineptitude. You published an article relating to me that contains the phrase “…or is harbouring something against the Guyana Chronicle…..”. You are aware that reporters of the Guyana Chronicle do receive information from me. I even brought to your attention on one occasion that one of your reporters misquoted me in an article. I therefore question the professionalism of publishing a known inaccuracy.

For information of the members of the public, I have taken a decision which was communicated to, if not all, most of the media houses that I will respond to their questions and provide information requested to the best that I can, but they will have to access me in the office and at Police functions to which they are invited, and not on my mobile phone. If they require such information while I am not in office, they can obtain same from the Police Public Relations Office.

The decision was taken because of the several disruptions I get at meetings and other engagements as well as very late in the night by reporters calling for information. All of the reporters, to the best of my knowledge, respected the decision, that is, with the exception of Mr. Smith who obviously  and for reasons known only to him, believes that he has 24/7 access to me.

Now that you have entertained the complaint of Mr. Smith, it is upon you, Mr. Editor, to discipline me and to give Mr. Smith 24 hours per day, 7 days per week access to me lest he unleashes his wrath upon you. I wish you luck.