Tweet
EDITORIAL - PAC should question Vin Lawrence
published: Thursday | September 14, 2006 <DIV class=KonaBody>
We are surprised that Audley Shaw, the chairman of Parliament's Public Accounts Committee, is not jumping at the opportunity, or so it appears, for a face-to-face confrontation with Dr. Vin Lawrence, the former boss of the Urban Development Corporation, in the PAC's review of the Sandals Whitehouse fiasco.
Dr. Lawrence, specifically named or not, is a key figure in this matter, which has been the subject of two investigations - by Contractor General Greg Christie and Desmond Hayle's forensic audit team - that have been remitted to the PAC. As executive chairman of the UDC and chairman of Ackendown Development Company, the public/private sector joint company that owns the hotel, he must have much to say about how property that started with a budget of US$70 million ended with a price tag of US$113 million, and why critical players ostensibly knew so little about what was happening.
Moreover, Mr. Shaw's party, the JLP, has fingered Dr. Lawrence, who was the final arbiter of most things regarding Whitehouse, and was a kind of Cardinal Richelieu of the former Patterson administration. In that context, it is a little peculiar that the savvy Mr. Shaw should invoke the claimed tradition of the committee in declaring a preference for first calling the UDC's current CEO, Mrs. Marjorie Campbell, as the primary witness about the agency's role in the hotel construction as shareholder and project manager. Only if there was a "specific desire" by the members of the PAC that Dr. Lawrence be called would that happen.
We believe that calling Dr. Lawrence ought not to be a matter of desire, but rather a demand of natural justice - for Dr. Lawrence himself and for the Jamaican taxpayer.
Indeed, even the most cursory reading of the Mr. Hayle's report insists upon it.
While the forensic auditors claim that Sandals Whitehouse is a fine piece of real estate, the findings suggest a cavalier approach to management, an arrogance of power and monumental failure of accountability that cost the public treasury dearly. For instance, the Hayle's report suggests that not only was the construction of the hotel underpriced, even after the cost was increased, the planners decided to make it more elaborate without making provisions in their costing. On top of that they over-engineered and made additions on whim. Then there were the other "management deficits" that added a further US$15 million to the cost of the property.
Nobody paid attention, it is suggested, in part because of overlapping directorships and shared executive positions and, perhaps, conflicts of interest.
If the claims levelled against Dr. Lawrence, specific and implied, from whatever quarter, are true, then he must be held accountable. But he must also have an opportunity to vindicate himself; the right to eyeball the members of the PAC and set the record straight, if that is possible. In that regard, Mr. Shaw and his PAC have a better opportunity at getting at the truth by direct questioning of Dr. Lawrence. The public, too, will have a chance to arrive at its own judgement based on what he has to say.
But it shouldn't only be Dr. Lawrence who appears before the PAC. All the critical players in this matter should be asked to testify before the PAC - about all the issues. <HR>The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.</DIV>
published: Thursday | September 14, 2006 <DIV class=KonaBody>
We are surprised that Audley Shaw, the chairman of Parliament's Public Accounts Committee, is not jumping at the opportunity, or so it appears, for a face-to-face confrontation with Dr. Vin Lawrence, the former boss of the Urban Development Corporation, in the PAC's review of the Sandals Whitehouse fiasco.
Dr. Lawrence, specifically named or not, is a key figure in this matter, which has been the subject of two investigations - by Contractor General Greg Christie and Desmond Hayle's forensic audit team - that have been remitted to the PAC. As executive chairman of the UDC and chairman of Ackendown Development Company, the public/private sector joint company that owns the hotel, he must have much to say about how property that started with a budget of US$70 million ended with a price tag of US$113 million, and why critical players ostensibly knew so little about what was happening.
Moreover, Mr. Shaw's party, the JLP, has fingered Dr. Lawrence, who was the final arbiter of most things regarding Whitehouse, and was a kind of Cardinal Richelieu of the former Patterson administration. In that context, it is a little peculiar that the savvy Mr. Shaw should invoke the claimed tradition of the committee in declaring a preference for first calling the UDC's current CEO, Mrs. Marjorie Campbell, as the primary witness about the agency's role in the hotel construction as shareholder and project manager. Only if there was a "specific desire" by the members of the PAC that Dr. Lawrence be called would that happen.
We believe that calling Dr. Lawrence ought not to be a matter of desire, but rather a demand of natural justice - for Dr. Lawrence himself and for the Jamaican taxpayer.
Indeed, even the most cursory reading of the Mr. Hayle's report insists upon it.
While the forensic auditors claim that Sandals Whitehouse is a fine piece of real estate, the findings suggest a cavalier approach to management, an arrogance of power and monumental failure of accountability that cost the public treasury dearly. For instance, the Hayle's report suggests that not only was the construction of the hotel underpriced, even after the cost was increased, the planners decided to make it more elaborate without making provisions in their costing. On top of that they over-engineered and made additions on whim. Then there were the other "management deficits" that added a further US$15 million to the cost of the property.
Nobody paid attention, it is suggested, in part because of overlapping directorships and shared executive positions and, perhaps, conflicts of interest.
If the claims levelled against Dr. Lawrence, specific and implied, from whatever quarter, are true, then he must be held accountable. But he must also have an opportunity to vindicate himself; the right to eyeball the members of the PAC and set the record straight, if that is possible. In that regard, Mr. Shaw and his PAC have a better opportunity at getting at the truth by direct questioning of Dr. Lawrence. The public, too, will have a chance to arrive at its own judgement based on what he has to say.
But it shouldn't only be Dr. Lawrence who appears before the PAC. All the critical players in this matter should be asked to testify before the PAC - about all the issues. <HR>The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.</DIV>