Latest update February 18th, 2025 11:27 AM
Jan 17, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
Kaieteur News- Accusations of conflict of interest have a peculiar way of rising to the surface in Guyana. However, these accusations are often tinged with misunderstanding and suspicion.
The most recent instance where such accusations have been made, concerns the Queens College School Board. This Board is a body entrusted with the stewardship of the nation’s and the Caribbean’s premier secondary school. But as with all school Boards in Guyana, its powers are very limited. When it comes to education in Guyana, power is still centralized at the level of the Ministry of Education and the Regional Democratic Councils.
At the heart of this extant controversy is the involvement of the Board’s head in a private company that was awarded the design contract for a new wing of the school. On closer examination, the murmur of impropriety dissolves into a hum of misplaced concern.
The first point to consider is the role and authority of the Queens College School Board in decisions of this nature. It is a body with circumscribed powers. When it comes to significant infrastructural decisions, such as the construction of a new wing, the locus of decision-making resides firmly with the Ministry of Education and the Central Tender Board. These entities, insulated from the School Board’s influence, oversee the awarding of contracts and the selection of contractors. The School Board’s purview does not extend to these spheres of decision-making in relation to the award of contracts for rebuilding a section of the school. As such, this renders any notion of undue influence by its members untenable.
This limited authority is evident too even in the matter of routine maintenance. Here, too, according to the Manual governing school Boards, such Boards act as mere collaborators rather than principal decision-makers. They work in tandem with the Ministry of Education and the Regional Democratic Council. The idea that the head of the School Board, by virtue of their private company’s involvement, could steer the process in their favor is not just improbable but implausible.
It is worth noting that the separation of roles within this framework is not incidental but deliberate. It ensures that the Board’s contributions remain fundamentally advisory and facilitative, leaving critical decisions to specialized entities equipped to handle them. This division of responsibilities safeguards against conflicts of interest and ensures that processes remain transparent and objective. The insinuation that a conflict exists ignores this carefully constructed architecture.
A second layer of concern has been raised about the dual role of the company responsible for designing the new wing and supervising its construction. Here, too, the charge of conflict-of-interest wilts under scrutiny. Far from being a point of contention, this dual role is a hallmark of sound architectural and construction practices. A company intimately familiar with the design is uniquely positioned to oversee its execution. Their involvement ensures fidelity to the original vision and prevents deviations that could compromise the project’s integrity.
To argue otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of such projects. Design and supervision of construction are not discrete acts but interwoven threads. The architect’s eye, having conceived the structure, is best suited to guide its realization. This in my estimation has benefits. It minimizes errors, streamlines communication, and often results in cost efficiencies.
The concerns raised about this arrangement seem to stem from a general unease with overlapping responsibilities rather than specific evidence of wrongdoing. This unease, while understandable should not overshadow the practical benefits of such arrangements. A measured approach—one that distinguishes between perceived and actual conflicts of interest—is essential. In this instance, the facts point not to impropriety.
Those making the accusations of conflict of interest have a duty to explain how such conflicts arise. This is not a condemnation of anyone but only that such accusations must be supported by an objective examination of the facts. After all, a ‘conflict of interest’ arises when an individual’s personal interests or affiliations could compromise or appear to compromise their ability to act impartially and in the best interests of an organization or entity they serve. This occurs when there is a potential for financial, professional, or personal gains to influence decisions or actions.
Ultimately, the questions surrounding the Queens College School Board and its head are storms in a teacup. In the case of Queens College, the verdict is clear. There is no conflict of interest here.
The greater concern should be about how we have reached this stage where such major repairs are only now being done. And the second concern should be about the disruption that will affect classes for some students.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of this newspaper.)
(No conflict of interest exists)
Feb 18, 2025
SportsMax – he Antigua and Barbuda Falcons have announced the appointment of Paul Nixon as their new head coach for the 2025 Republic Bank Caribbean Premier League (CPL) season. Nixon, a former...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- Mashramani, heralded as Guyana’s grand national celebration, is often presented as a... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Ambassador to the US and the OAS, Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News-Two Executive Orders issued by U.S.... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]