Dear Editor,

Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that I would have to be writing to put on record the lack of decency, transparency, accountability, and fairness by the Guyana Press Association (GPA), an organisation that all citizens and my colleagues should trust as the guardians of such principles.

I was a contender for the role of the Presidency of the GPA at the elections of May 14, 2023, at the Theatre Guild in Georgetown. Before the elections, through a plethora of emails and posts in a WhatsApp group of members, I raised many concerns that threatened to bring the GPA into disrepute if the elections were not conducted in a transparent and accountable manner.

Before I state these concerns, let me point out a few things for context.

When I announced my candidacy to replace Gordon Moseley as president in March 2015, I was unchallenged. When I completed my term, I nominated Nazima Raghubir for the post in January 2018 and there was no challenger. Hence, in those past two elections, there was no need to vote for the position – and therefore, no need for a challenger to demand to see a list of voters.

In those two elections I referenced, many persons were allowed to sign up for membership and pay their dues on the day of elections – and vote. Existing members were also able to pay outstanding dues – and vote. We did this because we realised that in between elections, media people are generally tardy in paying their fees and we wanted the broadest participation possible.

On May 8, 2023, I emailed the remaining members of the executive to see a copy of a list of eligible voters. I believe this was a fair request, given that Ms. Raghubir was seeking re-election and that the Secretary, Mrs. Svetlana Marshall-Abrams, and the two others on the executive – Mr. Rawle Toney and Mr. Denis Chabrol – were open to nomination to once again sit on the executive of the GPA.

In reply, Ms. Raghubir said, “The elections for office bearers are conducted conventionally for decades with the voting process laid before the AGM at the said meeting.” Nothing about a list.

Days later, after writing two other emails, Mrs. Marshall-Abrams replied that, “In the interest of fairness for all GPA members, the list of eligible voters will be read on Sunday to ALL members present.”

I replied that this could not be fair, taking into consideration that I, or any other potential candidate, would not be able to see the list and register any objections given that the executive retained control of the list and was also standing for re-election.

The executive did not budge.

I raised this issue for fear that the list was padded. The executive set up a deadline of May 6 by which members could pay their dues and be eligible to vote. When inquiries were made, new members of the media, who met the criteria for membership (three years of practice as a journalist), were bluntly told that their applications would be looked at by the new executive. I protested this and Ms. Raghubir’s reply was that members were free to make their applications and that it would be processed.

I reached out to the Secretary to confirm if “processed” meant approval and she said this was not automatic. So effectively, many members of the media were disenfranchised and unable to vote.

However, checks with other media houses revealed that the Secretary simply walked into media houses where they presumed they had support and signed up new members, even backdating their membership to reach the three-year requirement.
There was no committee on hand to vet applications, so to make it seem like approval depended on some lengthy process was a sorry excuse for the shenanigans afoot. Persons who did not meet the eligibility requirements for membership and voting were signed up.
The Secretary in statements at the AGM did admit she went on this “outreach” and signed up members on the spot. There was no committee or process to make a decision about who should gain membership. That process started and ended with Mrs. Marshall-Abrams in a matter of minutes.

While this “outreach” was done at some media houses, it was not done at others where the executive believed members would vote for me.
Again, this locked out participation in these elections to many. There was no outreach to colleagues in Berbice or Essequibo and they too were denied participation in the elections. In one case, a longstanding member of the GPA was denied voting for missing the May 6 deadline due to a mix-up. When she called to point this out and to pay, no concession was made and she was flatly denied voting rights.

Days before the elections, the editors of 10 media houses sent a petition for a release of the voters’ list and they were rejected. It was members of these media houses who were denied membership.
On May 12, in a last-ditch effort to secure some form of compromise and transparency, on behalf of these editors, I again wrote the executive seeking an urgent meeting to discuss our concerns. The only reply I received was one asking for an agenda. I immediately provided this, giving the following options to be considered:
1. Publication of the list of eligible voters for the upcoming elections
2. Reverting to the convention of accepting applications on the day of the AGM
3. Extending the deadline for the processing and approval of new members to the GPA by Saturday at 4 p.m. and accepting dues of existing members by the said deadline.

I received no reply.

The list of “eligible” voters was only read out to the AGM just before the start of nominations. No copies were shared with anyone, even at that late moment, to make objections. In any case, the Returning Officer, Ronald Burch-Smith, had no powers to accept objections and strike anyone off the list. After I raised concerns, he did allow me to take photographs of the pages he was given with the members who could vote.

As per the Constitution of the GPA, a person is eligible for membership of the GPA if that person “devotes a major part of his/her time and earns a major part of his/her income from journalism” with journalism being defined as “gathering, editing, presenting and commenting on news, information and events and editorial policy-direction of the content of newspapers, magazines, press or syndicated services, professional or business publications, radio, television, cinema and the teaching of journalism.”

As the Returning Officer read the list (before I took photos of the list), I immediately recognised and pointed out how the list was padded – a Bollywood show producer, a control operator, a media manager.

Under the constitutional provisions, their jobs make them ineligible for voting under the GPA constitution. With the photos of the list now with me, I quickly could see others who do not qualify – a taxi driver, a farmer, and a handyman.
On the list too were former editors and media workers who no longer work or contribute to news gathering or dissemination in any way. There were certainly many who recently started working in the media and did not meet the three-year requirement to vote.

So there is no other way to say it – the GPA elections were rigged.

This was a shame and disgrace on us as journalists who seek to champion democracy, transparency and accountability. Those elected on the basis of rigged elections have lost credibility to question anyone on such issues.

The credibility of the GPA has been severely harmed – and to me, that is the greatest shame.

Neil Marks
Editor
News Room