Kern says allegations in light bulb scandal baseless

[Lazie]

Observer Reporter
Friday, November 16, 2007



SPENCER. selection of service providers had not one iota of dishonest intent
KERN Spencer, the former junior minister at the centre of the controversial Cuban light bulb project, admitted yesterday that there may have been procedural breaches with the implementation of the project, but says allegations of dishonest or corrupt action on his part are baseless.

In a statement yesterday, Spencer, who has borne the brunt of public criticism since news broke some three weeks ago of gross overspending in the distribution of four million free incandescent bulbs from the Cuban government, said he resigned this week as the deputy opposition spokesman on energy because it was the right thing to do, and not an admission of guilt.

Phillip Paulwell, the former energy minister, had also resigned as the opposition spokesman on energy.

"I did so, not out of any acceptance of any allegations of dishonesty on my part, in relation to the probe into the distribution of the Cuban bulbs. I did so because in our parliamentary democracy, it is the right thing to do," Spencer said yesterday.

At the same time, Spencer said "any breach of procurement procedures arose from the desire to move quickly
and efficiently".

"In acting to ensure the timely implementation of the bulb replacement programme, the selection of the service providers had not one iota of dishonest intent," he said.
".The ministry developed a budget of US$3.1 million (more than J$200 million) to implement the programme and it was exceeded because some assumptions were not met.

"For example, financial input of all members of parliament, through the Social and Economic Support Programme (SESP), was not forthcoming; there was an increase in the personnel to 300 Cuban social workers and in excess of 900 Jamaican volunteers, and there were demurrage charges," Spencer said.

Energy Minister Clive Mullings told Parliament recently that the previous government, through the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica, had paid out $114.7 million for the distribution of the bulbs. Of this amount $85 million was paid out to Universal Management and Development Company Limited and $3 million to Caribbean Communications and Media Network Limited. Mullings said neither company was registered as contractor or supplier with the National Contracts Commission and there was no existing contract between the companies and the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica or the energy ministry. Invoices not yet paid could, however, send the cost of the project to $280 million.

Mullings also told the House that the involvement of the two companies, which were incorporated around the same time the programme began in July of 2006, was even more suspect since they were both directed by a Rodney Chin, whom the minister alleged was an acquaintance of Spencer.

[Gamma]

mi still a struggle wid it..... "Kern"? who inna right mind woulda name dem pickney "Kern"?

[Muadib]

It is probably short for Kernel.. his dad might have been an army man.

[Karl]

Observer Reporter
Friday, November 16, 2007



SPENCER. selection of service providers had not one iota of dishonest intent
KERN Spencer, the former junior minister at the centre of the controversial Cuban light bulb project, admitted yesterday that there may have been procedural breaches with the implementation of the project, but says allegations of dishonest or corrupt action on his part are baseless.

In a statement yesterday, Spencer, who has borne the brunt of public criticism since news broke some three weeks ago of gross overspending in the distribution of four million free incandescent bulbs from the Cuban government, said he resigned this week as the deputy opposition spokesman on energy because it was the right thing to do, and not an admission of guilt.

Phillip Paulwell, the former energy minister, had also resigned as the opposition spokesman on energy.

"I did so, not out of any acceptance of any allegations of dishonesty on my part, in relation to the probe into the distribution of the Cuban bulbs. I did so because in our parliamentary democracy, it is the right thing to do," Spencer said yesterday.

At the same time, Spencer said "any breach of procurement procedures arose from the desire to move quickly
and efficiently".

"In acting to ensure the timely implementation of the bulb replacement programme, the selection of the service providers had not one iota of dishonest intent," he said.
".The ministry developed a budget of US$3.1 million (more than J$200 million) to implement the programme and it was exceeded because some assumptions were not met.

"For example, financial input of all members of parliament, through the Social and Economic Support Programme (SESP), was not forthcoming; there was an increase in the personnel to 300 Cuban social workers and in excess of 900 Jamaican volunteers, and there were demurrage charges," Spencer said.

Energy Minister Clive Mullings told Parliament recently that the previous government, through the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica, had paid out $114.7 million for the distribution of the bulbs. Of this amount $85 million was paid out to Universal Management and Development Company Limited and $3 million to Caribbean Communications and Media Network Limited. Mullings said neither company was registered as contractor or supplier with the National Contracts Commission and there was no existing contract between the companies and the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica or the energy ministry. Invoices not yet paid could, however, send the cost of the project to $280 million.

Mullings also told the House that the involvement of the two companies, which were incorporated around the same time the programme began in July of 2006, was even more suspect since they were both directed by a Rodney Chin, whom the minister alleged was an acquaintance of Spencer.

Just two questions/issues:
1. Is Mullings saying the expended would have been A-OK if companies other that the two named had tendered the exact same invoices?

2. Was the allegation of fraud arrived at because the two companies involved had officers and or employees with close ties to Kearn?

[Lazie]

Just two questions/issues:
1. Is Mullings saying the expended would have been A-OK if companies other that the two named had tendered the exact same invoices?

2. Was the allegation of fraud arrived at because the two companies involved had officers and or employees with close ties to Kearn?

Your first question is ridiculous.

Regarding your second question let me give you an example. The gov't was billed and paid over J$1 million for work permits. The Ministry of LAbour did receive a request from Minister Paulwell requesting that the work permits be waved for the Cubans, the Permanent Secretary in the Labour Ministry admitted that the work permits were waved ....... I guess you see where the allegation of fraud is valid now.

[Karl]

Your first question is ridiculous.

Regarding your second question let me give you an example. The gov't was billed and paid over J$1 million for work permits. The Ministry of LAbour did receive a request from Minister Paulwell requesting that the work permits be waved for the Cubans, the Permanent Secretary in the Labour Ministry admitted that the work permits were waved ....... I guess you see where the allegation of fraud is valid now.

No!

Paulwell, we understand is one of the persons being accused of fraud...

...and, you are telling me that the same Paulwell requested Work Permits be waived...

...that same Paulwell, knowing full well what he asked for was granted...

....then was a party to presenting a bill for payment on what he knew was, at his request...his instructions...waived?

If you are sticking to your guns on that...and, further you expect anyone to find Paulwell committed fraud in such an instance, even if as you claim a bill was presented then...????

[Assasin]

If the govt check deep enough they will find out same thing happen to the technology fund, The Venezula agreement, intech fund and the telephone charges. If you notice that the fourth telephone license was given back to the government after people close to Paulwell got it and wasn't paying for it.

They bypass the then Minister of Finance for a reason, even though the then opposition was crying for them to be included in general revenue. All had companies who were not on the government bid lists or were dubious at best.

[Muadib]

Yuh soon si.

Mi not even gwine sorry fi yuh and yuh beloved party.

Same way mi nevah feel sorry fi Kern when him was a bawl...

Undah di Jail.. memba mi tell yuh.

[Lazie]

No!

Paulwell, we understand is one of the persons being accused of fraud...

...and, you are telling me that the same Paulwell requested Work Permits be waived...

...that same Paulwell, knowing full well what he asked for was granted...

....then was a party to presenting a bill for payment on what he knew was, at his request...his instructions...waived?

If you are sticking to your guns on that...and, further you expect anyone to find Paulwell committed fraud in such an instance, even if as you claim a bill was presented then...????

Stop drinking before coming on the forum. Did I say Paulwell billed the gov't? The entity that billed the gov't for something they didn't pay for committed the fraud.

[Karl]

If the govt check deep enough they will find out same thing happen to the technology fund, The Venezula agreement, intech fund and the telephone charges. If you notice that the fourth telephone license was given back to the government after people close to Paulwell got it and wasn't paying for it.

They bypass the then Minister of Finance for a reason, even though the then opposition was crying for them to be included in general revenue. All had companies who were not on the government bid lists or were dubious at best.

Assasin: The mere creation of a company to take advantage of a business opportunity and actually taking advantage of the opportunity is not a crime.

Nuh mek Lazie and Maudib tell yuh suh! Why then would anyone create a business entity if not to take advantage of an business opportunity?

The question to be asked is; Is (are) there any rule(s) and or regulation(s) and or law(s) that would prohibit what the principals and or shareholders did? ...and, if flouted what penality or penalities can be meted out?

[Assasin]

the fact that they are not on the government bid list and is getting the contract ahead of others, and also these companies are formed by board members and people who administrate the funds make it a crime.

Try that in the US nuh. The former CT government went to prison cause a company that did work with the states did his driveway and other work for free.

[Karl]

the fact that they are not on the government bid list and is getting the contract ahead of others, and also these companies are formed by board members and people who administrate the funds make it a crime.

Happens in the US so often yuh head spin!
...as I was telling a friend in JA a few hours ago, the US matra is, "do what you will...but do not get caught!'.

Where JA politicians are currently on the the road with corruption...was the US of the 1940s. The companies are formed in the USA seemingly with no contact to the politicians. Just look at the numbers of politicians who regularly resign and or are found guilty of flouting rules that govern relationships between companies that gain contracts from either of municipal, state or federal government?

Try that in the US nuh.

Like the perfect crime...those that get-away we never hear of!

The former CT government went to prison cause a company that did work with the states did his driveway and other work for free.

It may surprise you to know that is also illegal in JA!

[Assasin]

and you don't see the difference? The minister of finance and others can openly go to Parliament and say they break the law and absolutely nothing come of it. Yes it is done in the US but if you get caught you do the time or resign, in Ja no problem your party just spin and you do it next year again.

[Karl]

Yes it is done in the US but if you get caught you do the time or resign, in Ja no problem your party just spin and you do it next year again.

There you go again. Not in every case! There are members of the US government who use the tax-payers money and there was even one who was governor who on "Meet the Press" this morning it was said - used a government account for personal use.

...but, we are agreed that it should not be done! ...and, should be stopped!

[Assasin]

Karl they are normally punished if caught if caught in the US and can you prove me wrong?

That is the difference with Ja, we have the law but we let them go.