THE chairman of the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) is constantly in the news, and on occasions on controversial issues. The GRA Board is a corporate entity that has, among other things, fiduciary responsibility. Under the law, this board has no executive responsibility; that is vested in the office of the Commissioner General and team.Consistent with the protocol of a non-executive board, when its chairman acts or makes a pronouncement, it is expected that such is being done on behalf of the members of the board, given that the authority of the chairman comes from the decisions of the board. Recently, some appointments and terminations were announced by the chairman, which were later alleged to be a unilateral decision. This aspect of the chairman’s public announcements is not the focus of this editorial, though it is hoped that, in keeping with best practices, this matter would be sorted out soonest.

Attention is being given to the recent exchange between the chairman and the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU). The latter has accused the former of creating a hostile and insecure environment for GRA workers. The former, in responding, has accused the union of being misinformed, and of not being the workers’ representative. The chairman’s statement is that of concern, in that it highlights two major issues: one, the absence of awareness of industrial relations in the GRA; and two, an understanding of roles and responsibilities.

The GPSU is the bona fide representative of workers at the GRA. This relationship was established since the workers were employed at the Customs and Excise Department and at the Income Tax Department, which were later merged into the GRA.

Though not of significant material today, the PPP/C government, during the Bharrat Jagdeo Administration, sought to make the matter of the workers’ representation a political issue.

During the Donald Ramotar government, the politics of this issue was put aside, and pronouncements were made by both the Trade Union Recognition and Certification Board (TURB) and the Minister of Labour.

The then TURB Chairman, Justice Prem Persaud, and Minister of Labour, Dr. Nanda Gopaul, wrote Commissioner General Khurshid Sattaur, informing him that the GPSU is the recognised union, and the entity has to have engagement with it on behalf of the workers. The matter of representation has been settled by the responsible authority, and should be respected. Given the established legitimate relationship between the workers and GPSU, it is reasonable to expect that the union would speak out on behalf of the workers.

It is unfortunate that the chairman apparently did not know this, and the brewing conflict between him and the union, emanating from what the union sees as an abuse of his authority, could have been handled with deserving professionalism. Much too often, differences of opinion and conflicts escalate not because of the issue per se, but because time is not taken to understand the issue, its backdrop, and the process that ought to be employed in dealing with same.

There is, at this stage, no reason to believe the chairman in not well-intentioned in the role. However, at the same time, it should be said that, even with the best of intentions, where any act is executed without seeming regard for principles, practices, and procedures, it brings into question the best of intentions, and then it emerges into internecine conflict. Handling this issue would require soberness prevailing and the acceptance of the need to step away from the emotive and defer to the substantive in order to resolve what is evidently resolvable.

It helps neither the GRA, the Board, the GPSU, nor the country to have differences on matters that, in the first instance, should not occur were there respective group understanding and appreciation of their roles, scope and boundaries.

The editorial section of this newspaper has previously dealt with State boards and other aspects of leadership roles in government. We have covered the issue of the difference between an executive and non-executive board, which carries with it different responsibilities. In like manner, our editorial has also addressed
the local government authorities and the roles and responsibilities of the Council and those of the town clerk or overseers.

It is to Guyana’s, the subject ministers’, boards and Councils’ best interest to operate consistent with the established rules. Similarly, it will be to the embarrassment of all if attention is not paid to what can be construed as ignorance of the working of the system and refusal to accept the rules. Frankly speaking, these are unnecessary conflicts, diverting energies and time that could be spent on worthwhile pursuits, building better relationships, and delivering best of service for the people of Guyana.

Where previous governments may have gotten away, or even benefited from, stoking such adversarial relationship and disregarding established principles, procedures and practices, there comes a time when it ought to be realised that such approach is never to the benefit of the collective, but rather a few. And if we are seriously committed to working together and building Guyana, bad practices and arrogance will have to be eschewed.