<<Print>>

All is not well at the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA), as a promotion exercise carried out late last year has brought about confusion and is affecting the operations of the revenue collection agency. A total number of 681 staff, who sat and met the minimum pass mark, as stated in the criteria for the nationwide promotion exams, are seriously agitated for being sidelined in the promotions carried out by the management of the GRA. They are poised to rain fire and brimstone to compel the Commissioner General to reason with them and reverse his decision with regards to the promotions. In April 2014, a promotional course was organised for employees of the revenue collection agency who had their last promotion interview in 2008 and were supposed to have attended their interview in June the same year. However, just when the interview was almost due, it was postponed to September, 2014 to accommodate the 2009 and 2010 year groups, who were also due for promotion. Sensing danger about the problems the three groups put together for one interview may cause, the Ghana Revenue Authority Workers Union, The Chronicle learnt, petitioned the Commissioner General, and all who matter in the scheme of things at the GRA, to reconsider the decision over the promotion interviews. But the Commissioner General and his men, we are told, ignored the petition and went ahead with the conduct of the interview for all the three year groups. In a letter dated July 30, 2014, and signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Human Resource on behalf of the Commissioner of Support Service Division of the GRA, the criteria for the conduct of the interview for the three year groups were spelt out. It was stated that an officer eligible for promotion from the rank of a Principal Revenue Officer (PRO) to a Chief Revenue Officer (CRO) was required to obtain a pass mark of 60%, and, in addition, must pass in his or her technical area and management. �Depending on the vacancies available, all candidates who meet the above criteria will be ranked, and promotions effected up to the number of established vacancies,� the letter stated. It again stated that all other senior officers from the rank of Assistant Revenue Officer (ARO) to that of a Senior Revenue Officer (SRO) were required to obtain a pass mark of 50%, and, in addition, must pass in their technical area. The Chronicle is reliably informed that before the release of the interview results, there were rumors that the criteria for passing the interview for officers, ranging from the rank of ARO and SRO, were being varied. This created serious suspicions, worry and discomfort for some officers who saw this as a deliberate attempt by management to fail them, and also a move which could discredit the entire exercise and heighten undue favouritism in the promotion exercise. According to employees who were due for promotion but have been sidelined, �it was a well-rehearsed strategy of rewarding mediocrity� by management of the GRA, rather than those who are very good at their jobs, but outspoken on their ranks. In an attempt to clean up the mess created in the promotion exercise, another circular, dated December 1, 2014, headlined �RESULTS OF STAFF PROMOTIONS � 2014�and signed by the Acting Deputy Commissioner in charge of Human Resource, Yussif Adam Ibrahim, was issued. The said letter outlined a conflicting criteria to the earlier letter issued by the same Deputy Commission in charge of Human Resource. �Management is pleased to inform staff that the results of the above promotion exercise, conducted between August and September, 2014, for divisions of the Authority have been released. It would be noted that about 50% of the number of staff, who met the minimum criteria for an ordinary pass, have been promoted due to limited vacancies for the various grades. Promotion is based on merit within each Division of the Authority, and therefore, the minimum mark for the cutoff point differs from one grade to the other and also differs on Divisional basis. These differentials reflect the structured nature of the Interviews/Examinations for all Division of the Authority,� noted an aspect of the circular. New Criteria Per the new criteria, an Assistant Revenue Officer with the Domestic Tax Revenue Division for example, needed a score of 86.8 to pass the interview, while his or her colleague within the Support Services Division needed 77% marks to pass, a mark which contradicts the criteria for the conduct of the interview for the three year groups issued on July 30, 2014. Personnel who took part in the said interview described the new criteria as senseless and excessively discriminating, and an affront to fair human resource practice. �By this change in criteria, a breach of trust has not just been perpetrated, but that a serious credibility crisis has been set in motion, seriously discrediting of management and extremely injurious for the future of an organisation charged with the critical role of galvanizing revenue critical for national development,� lamented one officer who wanted to remain anonymous. Petition by staff A petition from the staff, dated December 16, 2014, drawing the Commissioner-General�s attention to the criteria set out in the letter dated July 30, 2014, was also ignored. An aspect of the petition said: �The assessment criteria was clearly spelt out in a circular to all staff dated July 30, 2014, before the interview of which the Principal Revenue Officer (PRO) � Chief Revenue Officer (CRO) position was required to obtain 60% pass mark with the condition that, it will be ranked and promotions effected up to the number of established vacancies, but all other Senior Officers from Assistant Revenue Officer (ARO) � Senior Revenue Officer (SRO) are required to obtain a pass mark of 50% and in addition must pass in their technical area and this is without prejudice to availability of vacancies. Unfortunately, availability of vacancies which was not a condition for the ARO � SRO group was employed to deny 681 staff their promotion to the next grade though they obtained the required pass mark.� It added: �The 2010 year group was promoted in 2012 with effect from 2010. The 2008 year group was not called in 2012 when they were due. In effect, 2010 year group is now benefiting from promotion twice in the short period of two (2) years and part of 2008 year group has lost out twice. Our understanding of the Board�s decision to suspend the initial call up for the interview was to expand the number to clear the back-log of officers overdue. Why then is management now cutting the number that passed into half and promoting only half when their own memo indicated 50% pass mark?� In the release letters sent to officers who were said to have passed the interview but who could not be promoted due to what the Deputy Commissioner termed �inadequate vacancies�, the officers were told to work hard for the next interviews. The affected officers see the statement as disjointed and contradictory, since one, as per the criteria set, cannot pass the same interview and yet be called to attend another so as to be promoted. According to the affected officers, the management of the revenue collection agency has not been consistent with the decisions they take, especially, with regards to promotions in the organisation. They argued that management had been complaining of inadequate vacancies, for which officers who had legitimately passed the interview were denied, but their colleagues who go out to do their second degrees are in no time upgraded. To them, the action of management clearly demonstrates serious disrespect and disregard for seniority within the GRA, creating huge difficulties for the command structure, which obviously, has been turned down. The agitated employees are, however, calling for an immediate remedy to this anomaly, since, in their opinion, if issues with vacancies were critical to the orderly conduct of the interview, management would have given prominence to the first group of 2008, even before the 2009 and 2010 year groups, who only attended their last promotion interview in 2012. Failure to heed their call, they argued, would result in a nationwide sit-down strike in addition to going to court for redress. �We are very resolute in our quest to fight this official disrespect, needless discrimination and favoritism from within and without the GRA until we are granted this promotion which is not a consideration but a right,� an affected employee said. The internal conflict, The Chronicle learnt, is affecting revenue collection, since the senior officers who are supposed to supervise the exercise have already abandoned their responsibilities until the matter is resolved. For the past three years, The Chronicle is reliably informed, the revenue collection agency has not met its revenue target for the nation, a result which is likely to be repeated this year. Revenue Shortfall Signals picked up by this paper indicate that the GRA is still struggling to collect revenue due the first quarter of the year, and if the matter, together with others, is not immediately addressed, the nation is expected to lose millions of cedis that would have helped in its developmental agenda. Efforts to get the Commissioner-General respond to the matter have proved futile, as his mobile handset was either switched off or out of coverage area at the time of going to press.