From the TRINIDAD GUARDIAN:
There were “wide discrepancies” in the procedure used to mark the examination papers of nine dismissed workers at the Trinidad and Tobago consulate in New York. This was the finding of an investigation done by Ambassador to Washington Neil Parsan after the July 5 termination of the services of the workers.
The investigation was launched after the sacked workers wrote to Parsan seeking his assistance in having them reinstated. They said they were unfairly fired after failing an exam given by the authorities at the consulate.
There were “wide discrepancies” in the procedure used to mark the examination papers of nine dismissed workers at the Trinidad and Tobago consulate in New York. This was the finding of an investigation done by Ambassador to Washington Neil Parsan after the July 5 termination of the services of the workers.
The investigation was launched after the sacked workers wrote to Parsan seeking his assistance in having them reinstated. They said they were unfairly fired after failing an exam given by the authorities at the consulate.
Parsan’s draft report said after reviewing the examination scripts, it was determined that each paper was marked by the Consul General in New York, Rudrawatie Nan Ramgoolam, and five other members of the consulate’s staff on the specimen answers to each question.
Parsan said in the report: “This appears to be at variance with the usual procedure where examination scripts are marked by one examiner and a second marker.” He said no reason was advanced for adopting that procedure at the consulate. “A perusal of the individual scores of each marker also shows wide discrepancies in some instances which could lead an observer to wonder whether the usual procedure was followed (and) if that would have led to different results,” the report added.
It added: “The Consul General indicated that she did not take part in this exercise but the score sheets show otherwise, since she is listed as one of the markers.” The seven-page draft report also stated: “A review of the examinations script revealed that while they were prepared based on the specific requirements for the relevant positions, they also included general questions about the consulate and other issues which may have been somewhat difficult to answer.”
Parsan’s report also revealed “applicants were not given any information on the nature of the examination.” The document added: “The Consul General and other members of the home-based staff were not of the view that this should have been done.” Ramgoolam said she was not prepared to comment on the matter until the Foreign Affairs Ministry issued a statement.
Parsan said in the report: “This appears to be at variance with the usual procedure where examination scripts are marked by one examiner and a second marker.” He said no reason was advanced for adopting that procedure at the consulate. “A perusal of the individual scores of each marker also shows wide discrepancies in some instances which could lead an observer to wonder whether the usual procedure was followed (and) if that would have led to different results,” the report added.
It added: “The Consul General indicated that she did not take part in this exercise but the score sheets show otherwise, since she is listed as one of the markers.” The seven-page draft report also stated: “A review of the examinations script revealed that while they were prepared based on the specific requirements for the relevant positions, they also included general questions about the consulate and other issues which may have been somewhat difficult to answer.”
Parsan’s report also revealed “applicants were not given any information on the nature of the examination.” The document added: “The Consul General and other members of the home-based staff were not of the view that this should have been done.” Ramgoolam said she was not prepared to comment on the matter until the Foreign Affairs Ministry issued a statement.
No comments:
Post a Comment