Communication between two top men in police is an issue

Dear Editor I read with keen interest a letter in SN dated February 11, under the caption, ‘Following management reforms the police force now is different from the one which Conway served.’ This letter was signed by the police Public Relations and Press Officer. There was also the same letter in the GC on the day in question, while KN carried my letter on Feb 10 under the heading, ‘Many sections in the Guyana Police Force performed admirably.’ I am sure that the PRO will cherish that headline.

Over the weekend I received several calls, emails, text and whatsApp from persons residing in Guyana and overseas. Some felt that it was a subtle attempt to belittle my character and integrity and asked me to respond to the PRO. I have acceded to their request.

The PRO’s letter is riddled with inaccuracies, irrelevancies, wild statements and questionable figures intended to mislead the readers.

I did not blame the police for the deficit of 757 ranks. I wrote that they were understaffed by about 1000 ranks. Whether or not the vacancy is 1000 or 757 is immaterial. The point I made is that there are a large number of vacancies in the GPF but despite the need for more boots of various sizes and quality on the ground, certain sections of the force were excelling, including the Major Crime Unit. I also highlighted the work of Assistant Commissioners Ian Amsterdam, Clifton Hicken and Senior Superintendent Stephen Mansell. I particularly praised the work of Mansell’s community approaches to solve crime and wondered what the division was doing in that area since Mansell proceeded on leave, as crime had increased. The public is kept in the dark if there are any community interventions. That was my point. The PRO stated that there is a 6 per cent decrease in serious crime as compared to last year but he did not mention that certain crimes have increased. In any case crime in that division is too high and must be addressed.

With regard to training, raised by the PRO. Recruitment and training particularly recruit training are designed to produce quantity rather than quality. Talk to the four months old probationers who recently graduated. Interview their immediate supervisors. You will find out that the initial training was inadequate. Let me give you an isolated experience I had with one of the recruits in question. He was not courteous and very arrogant. I complained to his superior. This is what the superior said, “Sir why you worrying. Them is the four months police that we have to deal with. Them en know nothing and how to talk to people.” The methodology and instructional materials leave much to be desired. No comments from the PRO about andragogy and the eclectic approach towards training. I wonder why. Persons with station management experience are selected and after being given a train the trainer course are made instructors. Most of the present crop of instructors, if any, did not fall into that system. Should you not be a trained trainer before you benefit from a train the trainer course? Is the PRO referring to the short one-off training course conducted for trainers when Leroy Brummel was commissioner? This was a course that involved facilitators from the Cyril Potter College of Education. Were any more held?

I must admit that when I was the Force Training Officer some courses took longer than planned. There were diverse reasons for that course of action. Many do not exist today. I was not prepared to sacrifice quality for quantity. Hence I ensured that the recruits were properly trained before they graduated. Paul Williams, the Force Training Officer, is an excellent senior officer yet he is given a basket to fetch water in terms of the human and other resources given to him. He has a law degree from the University Of Guyana. He is denied the reasonable assistance to develop academically but he is a fighter and believes in self-development. He is commissioner material.

The PRO wrote, “While the Force cannot dispute Mr Conway’s experience while he was serving, to say that ‘ghosting’ was done in a large division when Mr Greene was Commissioner of Police, is to malign the dead.”

What a contradiction? What a deadly statement? The PRO admits that the force cannot dispute that I experienced ‘ghosting,’ yet he wrote that I am actually maligning the dead. Deceased commissioner Henry Greene did not commit ghosting. A senior officer did. He is alive and well. Due to respect for him, he will remain nameless. There were more cases

of ghosting which for the time being I will not disclose. I repeat that I experienced ghosting. I do not know if it is currently taking place. The possibility of it existing cannot be overlooked. Those senior officers who crafted the response for the PRO were not on our senior management team when ghosting came to light so they may not have first-hand information of what was reported. By the way, the recent year end check of the police stats discovered that divisions A and C that were showing a large percentage decrease in reports of certain serious crimes had an increase instead. It may be a case of simple arithmetic. Some persons did not add or subtract correctly. I am sure that it was not a case for the Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate.

I mentioned about serious communication issues and concerns at the apex of management of the GPF. The PRO wrote about the Performance Group Meetings, the agenda and other irrelevant issues. He said, “Mr Conway may therefore need to explain his perceived communication issues.” The apex is not half or three quarters of the way up. It is the very top. Sad to say that the communication between the number one and two men in the force is extremely strained. Apart from group meetings, the communication is in writing. The other channels of communication are trickling if not blocked. There are some serious barriers to communication between the two men which are not yet for public consumption. Face-toface, one-on-one and eyeballing one another as forms of communication between the top gunners of the force are rare. When last did the number two man enter the office of the number one and vice versa? Lack of communication is often an obstacle to correcting problems. Without effective communication, people do not know what is expected of them or how well they are doing. Leaders and their subordinates may not be able to agree on the quality of service they provide. Animosities may foster. The situation is causing some quiet divisions among the senior members of the Force. Cracks are emerging. Some explained to me that at meetings they are fearful to make contributions for fear of being accused of taking sides. Sometimes when things are very close to us we do not see them. Further I say not on this issue.

What does the PRO mean when he wrote, “The fact is that the Force in contemporary times underwent a lot of management reforms that makes it completely different from the one when Mr Conway served.” Where is the reform? The basic structure of the Force remains the same as when I served. The reporting system was changed a bit. They still have Annual Officers’ meetings. The police are still members of the Joint Services. Is changing the name of a meeting or events reform? Let us know any substantial reform as compared to when I was serving at a senior level.

Through the PRO we now know that the mission statement was crafted by United Kingdom consultants and implanted in the Strategic Management Department. Nothing was mentioned about consultation. What a shame. No wonder it is greatly flawed. It states in part, “To achieve this, we will work in partnership with communities, public agencies and private bodies to enhance and support an environment where all people are preventing crime and building a safer and secure Guyana.”

It is unrealistic. It is not achievable. All cannot be involved in preventing crime and building a safer Guyana. The PRO is silent on the contents of the mission statement.

I have nothing but good will for the GPF. I want the police to deliver the highest quality of service to the citizens they swore to serve and protect. I praise them when they do well. I support and defend them on numerous occasions. I have been accused of being pro police. That is what I am. Whenever the police walk off the plank of professionalism I attempt to bring them back on the professional plank through my writing. Perhaps, that is the issue that a few members of the Force do not like.

The studies that I quoted from are international best practices. They are relevant to the Guyana Police Force and fit nicely into the Guyanese culture. By the way did the police consider to what extent studies of crime in developing countries and the culture of the people in those countries are similar or different from the culture of Guyanese before they sent 186 members of the Force on overseas training or accepted the international training conducted locally for 405 ranks? That was the question asked of me by the PRO when I quoted from the works of various overseas law enforcement experts.

The PRO suggests that I positively expend my energies in conducting surveys to determine citizens’ approval or disapproval of the performance of the police. Let me be clear. I do not have the time nor competence to do such surveys. If I do the PRO may again accuse me of cutting and pasting as he did in response to my letter to the editor. Instead of being reactive the PRO can be proactive by conducting some surveys on the public’s perception on the performance of the police. However, I have the knowledge, skills and attitude to develop members of the Force at all levels, including senior officers in a training environment. Giving the opportunity I can make this a reality.

The performance of any police force that does not respond to wellfounded criticism with a willingness to change will be prosaic.

Yours faithfully, Clinton Conway Assistant Commissioner of Police (Ret’d)