-urges restructuring of management, filling vacancies

WEAK management and organisational structure, and human resources complement were the primary areas addressed in the findings of the Forensic Audit into the Cheddi Jagan International Airport Corporation (CJIAC).The audit, released on Wednesday and completed by Goorwantie Devi Kaladeen, found that consideration should be given to restructuring of the management functions and the filling of existing vacancies at the corporation.
A close examination of the audit, which reviewed the operations of CJIAC for the period January 1, 2012 to May 31, 2015, has found, for instance, that the contract for the company’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Ramesh Ghir was not in compliance with the CJIAC Order No 20 of 2001. According to the report, CJIAC’s board was not at all involved in the renewal of Ghir’s contract, which had expired on September 30, 2014.
Rather, the Office of the President (OP) on April 21, 2005 gave it the green light for an additional three years, effective October 1, 2014.
That decision, it was found, followed a request made on April 10, 2015 by the then Minister of Public Works, Robeson Benn.
The new contract was signed by Ghir himself and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Public Works at the time.
It was uncovered, too, that the new agreement changed Ghir’s “reporting mechanism” from CJIAC’s board to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Public Works, now called the Ministry of Public Infrastructure.
CJIAC RESPONDS
In response to the auditor’s findings, CJIAC acknowledged that Ghir’s contract was not renewed in a timely manner, but that the oversight was brought to the attention of the subject ministry in March 2015, and corrective action was taken.
“At no time did the Chief Executive Officer cease reporting to the Chairman of the Board of Directors,” CJIAC said, adding: “This practice continued until the end of the life of the board in June 2015.” It also noted that Ghir’s contract is currently being reviewed, and will be signed by the appropriate authority.
But while the CJIAC may have satisfied some of his queries, the auditor still wanted to know, for instance, why “no reason was given for this oversight, which was detected almost six months after the expiry date,” and why “Management also failed to explain the reason the oversight was brought to the attention of the Ministry of Public Works, and not the CJIAC Board, which was still active until June 30, 2015.”
According to the report, there was at least one board meeting on April 16, 2015, after the oversight of the expiration of the CEO’s contract was detected in March 2015, “yet this anomaly was not brought to the attention of the board.”
Additionally, the auditor said it is the responsibility of the Personnel Department to keep track of the expiry dates of employees’ contracts, while the Finance Department is expected to ensure that a contract is in force before payments are made.
But according to the report, “The Personnel Officer explained that she had no access to the Chief Executive Officer’s contract, while the Accountant referred the Auditor to the Manager, Commercial and Administration for an explanation.”
This being the case, the report said “it was, therefore, recommended that the contract for the Chief Executive Officer be reviewed by the New Board of CJIAC when it comes into effect…”
It was also proposed that “it is the responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer to ensure that matters of his contract is brought to the attention of the board and renewed in a timely manner; and that of the Manager, Commercial and Administration, who has overall responsibility to supervise the Personnel and Finance Department, to ensure that proper systems are in place for management of contracts.”
As to the Manager, Commercial and Administration Finance Department, his responsibility is “to explain why this observation was not made and dealt with in the appropriate manner, and payments should not be made for contracted employees whose contracts have expired.”
NOT JUSTIFIED
Meanwhile, it was discovered that the Manager of the Commercial and Administration’s employment was “not justified.”
According to the audit report, the incumbent was “dishonest at the interview; had no previous managerial skills; no background check was done prior to appointment; a poor performer at previous employment, and failed to inform CJIAC that previous employment was still in force and accepted the new employment.”
Again, according to the report, Manager, Commercial and Administration, Dursatty Doodnauth-Mangru was employed at the entity since August 22, 2005 and her “significant qualification”, as seen in her personal file, is the ACCA certification attained in 2005.
“However, her membership could not be verified at the time of the audit. A perusal of her personal file highlighted the following unsatisfactory features: Her personal file did not contain any references from her previous employers; the evaluation for her interview states areas of concerns, in that she appeared not genuine; had limited Human Resources, Industrial Relations and Commercial Administration knowledge; her positives, according to the evaluation of her interview, were not sufficient to guarantee employment; the panel failed to notice, from the applicant’s application, that she did not have any significant experience at a management level; the Chief Executive Officer indicated on her application that she was not always truthful.”
According to the report, consideration to employ this applicant in a senior position, with knowledge that she was being dishonest at the time of her interview and without doing a background check is “a clear indication that her employment was fixed.”
Said the report, “During the course of the forensic audit, background information was requested directly from the Chief Executive Officer of the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) after the Human Resources Manager failed to provide adequate information.”
It was found that the manager was a “poor performer as a Treasury Accountant at GuySuCo, and that on two occasions, she was given “serious warning letters” for making “significant mistakes” that could have been detrimental to the company.
She had a final warning, after which she resigned from GuySuCo while on vacation leave to take up the appointment of Manager, Commercial and Administration at CJIAC.
It was also found that she had failed to inform the CJIAC that her resignation date was effective from October 18, 2005, when she accepted employment, with effect from August 22, 2005. “She was, therefore, employed with both corporations simultaneously for a period of approximately two (2) months. This was a clear case of conflict of interest for both corporations,” the report stated.
NO EXPERIENCE OF NOTE
Additionally, it was observed that the employee had “no significant managerial experience” before her appointment with CJIAC. The highest position she had previously held was Treasury Accountant, and that was at GuySuCo, from February 2004 to August 2005, a period of approximately one year and six months of experience.
She was also an accountant trainee at the Guyana Power and Light Inc. for one year, as seen on her curriculum vitae.
In response to the foregoing findings, management said that Doodnauth-Mangru was employed following an agreement by an interview panel, and sanctioned by the board.
Mrs.Doodnauth-Mangru was also advised of the following, regarding her employment at GuySuCo:
“As a senior staff of GuySuCo, she was required to give three (3) months’ notice of resignation. This she did in lieu of annual leave; she acknowledged being written to twice on poor performance. The last letter was dated November 22, 2004 on an incident that took place on November 11, 2004.
“Her last day of work was more than nine (9) months after this incident, and she maintained that she left GuySuCo for job security, as they were facing financial difficulty.”
The auditor noted that no document was produced for audit evidence that the board had sanctioned the employment of the Manager, Commercial and Administration. “Sending a letter to the former Chairman of the Board it is not evidence that the board agreed to the employment. Further, no acknowledgement of the letter from the Chairman was verified.”
A letter dated July 7, 2005 to the former Chairman indicated that arising out of the interviews, Doodnauth-Mangru was identified to fill the vacancy. It also mentioned if Doodnauth-Mangru accepted the offer she would be required to give one month’s notice to her current employer. “This is clear indication that she failed to inform CJIAC that she was required to give three (3) months’ notice as mentioned in the management response. This can be considered an act of dishonesty.”
The report said that if CJIA knowingly offered employment especially to a senior staff, who is still attached to another organisation, that is considered poor management. The offer of employment letter was signed by the Chief Executive Officer. The auditor called on Ghir to explain the reason he wrote on the applicant’s CV ‘was not always truthful’ and still agreed to offer her employment in a senior position in the corporation.
“Good governance is encouraged for employment of all categories of staff. The evaluation criteria should be according to the terms of reference and not favouritism; Applicants who are found to be dishonest at interviews should immediately be apprised of their dishonesty and the interviews to be discontinued,” it was recommended.
Due to the findings, the auditor also recommended that the achievements of Doodnauth-Mangru for the past 10 years be reviewed. Additionally, it was discovered that several key positions of the CJIAC remained vacant for an average of six years. These included the post of Deputy Chief Executive Officer, which has been vacant since April 30, 2005; the vacant Operations Manager position has not filled since November 17, 2008; Manager,Engineering & Maintenance Department which post has remained vacant since September 5, 2009; the position of Head of the Security Department has been vacant since the formation in 2009; the vacancy for Senior Accountant has not been filled since September, 2010; the vacancy for Senior Personnel Officer has not been filled since July, 2005, while the position of Accounts Supervisor has remained vacant since January, 2015 and the Internal Audit Department is not in the Organisation Structure.