Embarrassing vacancy notices

When will public servants cease to embarrass their leaders, themselves and professionals who know better, as well as those related to the increasing number of foreign institutions in this country?

Why for example, should we be continually embarrassed by such offerings as the following Vacancy Notices: a) 1. Manager, Training and Development

2. Student Affairs Officer

1. How could the Ministry of Public Service be led by the Permanent Secretary to believe that for the ‘managerial’ position a Diploma would be an acceptable qualification, ‘PLUS seven years working experience (at no specific level) in a communication oriented job preferably in a training organisation’?

2. Student Affairs Officer

The numbering suggests that Officer is lower in the job hierarchy than Manager; but the requirement of a First Degree only is considered so acceptable as to more than compensate for just ‘one (1) year working experience (at whatever level?) in a training organisation’.

What a reflection on the competency of the related functionary of this Ministry – presumably a ‘Contracted Employee’!

b) But perhaps the more egregious embarrassment is the invitation by the Ministry of Health for the outdated position of Principal Personnel

Officer. But then this Ministry has to comply with the constipated arrangement obtaining in Guyana’s Public Service for the last three decades – an embarrassment for the leadership of a country aspiring to set examples for its Caricom partners, who all have long promoted the concept and function of Human Resources Management.

Our National Budget of 2022 shows this category of public servants as follows:

GS11- Principal Personnel Officer – 12 GS 9 – Senior Personnel Officer – 19 GS 6 – Personnel Officer II – 10 GS 5 – Personnel Officer I – 8

Then there are CLERKS – unqualified and untrained?

It would be instructive to learn of the respective professional qualifications and experience requirements of this retarded job structure.

Why, with all the scholarships and other funded developmental programmes, there is minimal recognition that suitably qualified human resources management practitioners could better contribute to the prospective ‘human development’ espoused by the Administration?

Yours faithfully,

E.B. John

Retired Human Resources Director