This complaint is about Guyana Marine Conservation Society. About the way they treat people that work for them and with them. In particular, members of the indigenous community in Imbotero, Smith Creek and Aruka. I understand that your process may be to launch an investigation to validate this complaint. I would like you to keep in mind that Miss Annette Arjoon has contacts in high places and nothing will most likely come of it. Regardless, I still believe that there might be strong members of your team that can see past the veil and can see what the middle class sees so clearly. Further, I know that there are members on your team who are very close to Miss Annette Arjoon and she will know about this complaint before an investigation is even launched. This will give her the advantage to scare community members and employees into silence. She is very good at that. Miss Annette Arjoon is a bully and if you get an opportunity to speak with past employees (and confidentially to current employees) I am confident that you will hear the truth from each and every one of them. I do understand that you will have limitations in terms of what you can do about her behaviour. Here are the things that you could possibly do something about. To start, please note that GMCS has more directors on their board than they have employees. 1. GMCS bypasses recognized Indigenous governance. They engage directly with individual community members while bypassing Toshaos and village councils. They make decisions, conduct meetings and advance projects without formal council authorization. They undermine established governance structures recognized under the Amerindian Act. This is leading to erosion of Indigenous self-governance and consent mechanism. 2. GMCS engages in unauthorized recording and public representation within those communities. They record community members without clear, informed consent. They publish images and narratives on social media portraying themselves as an ally or representative. They control public storytelling while communities have no editorial oversight. This is reputational exploitation, lack of informed consent, misuse of community likeness and voice. 3. Narrative control and misrepresentation. GMCS frames themselves publicly as the primary advocate, expert or gatekeeper for communities. They speak on behalf of those communities without mandate and they shape donor and public perception before communities can present their own narratives. This has led to loss of community agency, donor misinformation, power imbalance in representation.4. Economic coercion through employment practices. GMCS publicly discloses individual's pay rates. They repeatedly remind workers that they are "paid a lot" while minimizing their contributions. They use pay as leverage to silence dissent or discourage boundary setting. This is workplace intimidation, economic shaming. 5. Intimidation via replacement tactics. GMCS trains alternative workers in front of existing staff as an implicit threat of replacement. They use visibility of replacements to discourage disagreement or resistance. This is psychological intimidation and has led to suppression of accountability and fear-based compliance.6. Smear and divide practices. GMCS speaks negatively about staff, consultants and community members to third parties. They create distrust between individuals and organizations and they position themselves as the sole reliable authority. This has led to breakdown of collaboration, isolation of community actors, manipulation of alliances. 7. Economic capture of community based income. GMCS acquired private boats and facilities used for project logistics. They route donor-funded logistics exclusively through these assets. This has displaced community-owned boats, labor, accommodation and services. This has diverted project benefits away from host communities and is economic disempowerment. They have basically created a de facto monopoly over community access; dependency and loss of bargaining power. I wonder how many donors are aware that the projects they fund within these communities benefit GMCS economically and not the host communities To summarize these are the core systemic issues that I identified (that I think you can do something about):1. Weak enforcement of Indigenous governance authority.2. Absence of standardized consent, media and access protocols.3. Lack of conflict-of-interest safeguards in project logistics.4. No protection mechanism for communities who prioritize local economic participation.And trying to do something about GMCS/Miss Annette Arjoon is hopeless. As I stated, there are more members on their board than there are employees. Which also reminds me: the turn over rate is preposterous. For an organization that has been around for decades, they do not have one single long term employee (other than Miss Annette Arjoon). It is a revolving door because of the way Miss Annette Arjoon treats employees. I do believe that the solution is the establishment of clear, enforceable policies that protect Indigenous authority, economic participation and consent. There will always be another GMCS. It is the community leaders and members who need the tools, training and support to safeguard themselves against these goliaths.