Tweet
The Contractor General got it wrong on the JUTC probe
Friday, December 19, 2008
Perkin's On Line last Wednesday, read an e-mail about the current Contractor General (CG) probe of the JUTC. The writer noted recent allegations that the CG was not thorough in his investigation as cause for concern, as if true and public allegations were made against board members, then it means that very soon Jamaica will only be left with "political thugs" willing to serve.
Contractor General Greg Christie
This is a very serious concern, as the very same persons Jamaica is trying to keep away from public office are the same persons that would be left. It is therefore very important to carefully analyse the charge the report was not thorough enough to arrive at the truth and so prevent perceptions such as recorded in the referenced e-mail.
The media generally has shown a lack of ability to properly analyse and investigate the charges, with the exception of very few, including the stubborn pursuit by the Observer's Ingrid Brown.
If the charge that the CG report is not thorough and the statement by the DPP could be interpreted that the report was not independently and objectively investigated, as reiterated by Wilmot Perkins, then any unfounded allegation would be no different from the abuse of poor Jamaicans by the police force. Only in this case the unwarranted abuse would be by the pen and not gun. In any case both would be an injustice perpetuated by the office of an authority figure, which some would deem state terrorism.
In order to arrive at the truth we need to look at the CG's report. The following can be asked:
1. "The primary means of data collection and evidence-gathering, which were utilised throughout the Investigation, included written requisitions/questionnaires which were issued by the OCG.". Was there other means of data collection and evidence-gathering? If so, why is it not stated for completeness? If this was the only means why not say that it was? If this was the only means then why was there no other form of evidence-gathering to corroborate this method? It would seem that a thorough investigation would not rely on only one means of data collection and evidence-gathering. If the police e.g. relied only on statements to charge someone for a crime then there would be a lot of persons walking around with criminal charges.
2. If this was the only form of evidence-gathering then as the Jamaica Observer article on Tuesday December 16, 2008 asks, why would the CG rely on the statement of someone he implied was not credible to conclude that there was only one Procurement committee meeting. This is especially in light of the same article that the set of minutes submitted to the CG for that meeting referred to a previous Finance and Procurement meeting and it should have raised the curiosity of the CG, given that he declared Bindley Sangster not credible.
3. The CG report stated that J$1.6 million was paid to Simber. There was, however, no report of who signed the cheques, which evidences money has left the company. The act of corruption is only complete when monies are paid over, so knowing who signed the cheques is an important piece of information. The signing of a contract is irrelevant if no monies pass, and it would be prudent to determine which persons signed, and the backup documents used. Was it board members that signed or management, and where is the culpability of management?
4. The CG report quotes section 17 (1) of the Public Bodies Management & Accountability Act as saying that "Every director and officer of a public body shall. (a) act honestly and in good faith in the best interests of the public body; and (b) exercise the care, diligence and skill." of a reasonably prudent person. Given the fact that the CG also says that directors were not in all instances made aware of the award of contracts, is it reasonable to expect that someone with no knowledge of the contract award will not be able to prevent it, especially given the fact that an executive chairman and management was in charge of operations. What evidence is there to suggest that the board did not at all times act in the best interest of the company, especially if only one form of evidence-gathering was used? It is important that evidence of them not acting in the best interest of the company is shown.
5. My understanding from the board's response, and further investigation, is that there was no committee called a Procurement committee, but rather there was an internal management committee that dealt with operational procurement activities and would make recommendations to the board's Finance and Procurement subcommittee. The subcommittee provided oversight of the procurement process, but was never responsible for the execution of procurement activities, which was carried out by the internal management committee called the Internal Evaluation Review committee [reference in the board response]. This management committee was substantially constituted as the CG report recommends, and seems to be the committee the CG was referring to as would have been responsible for procurement issues. So it is quite possible that the CG was making allegations against the wrong committee, as it is the internal committee that carried out all procurement activities and made the recommendation to the board subcommittee for subsequent recommendation to the board. This implies that if the CG had clarified the statement by the person he deemed not credible then he may have gained an appreciation of the procurement process.
6. Sangster was never chairman of the Procurement committee, but the Finance and Procurement sub-committee of the board. The chairman of the internal management committee was the late Executive Chairman.
7. It would seem Simes and Sangster may have charges to answer regarding the amended Simber returns and the signing of the quarterly contract report and the perjury charge. Whether they are criminal matters or not would seem to me a charge that can only be made after evidence is uncovered to determine what the intent was. If a man kills someone, the court will have to determine if it was murder or self-defence. The act of killing someone does not in itself make it criminal. I suspect it is this lack of evidence that led the DPP to rule that further investigations are needed.
8. There seems to have been procedural breaches in the award of the Simber contract in particular and the interim security contract. The evidence presented in the CG report supports the conclusion that the board was not made aware of some of the contracts. The CG report states that when the board became aware of the security need, it went through the proper channels and received the appropriate approvals. Again the CG report refers to the signing of the contract by management, without the knowledge of the board. This begs the question then what is the culpability of those who wrongfully initiated the contract and what was the role of the internal management committee, which should have done the necessary procurement due diligence and recommended it to the board. In fact, a listing of all outstanding contracts provided to the board's Finance and Procurement committee shortly after never listed the Simber contract, which begs the question why was this contract not listed on the requested update to the board Finance and Procurement committee.
9. One could infer from the CG report that Minister Henry lied about the Simber shareholding. Do we expect that a minister of Government is going to check everything that comes to him, or should he rely on the word of the people around him? The day we start treating each other with suspicion will be the start of a new downturn.
These questions, and the further need for investigation by the DPP, do raise questions as to the thoroughness of the CG's report. It also raises questions, as raised in Ingrid Brown's article, about the validity of previous reports and the fairness of the CG in furthering the investigations in the JUTC again. It is clear that there were procurement breaches but it seems as if the breaches were at the level of the management process and not at the board, as intimated by the CG. Further the focus of the CG on the board's sub-committee seems incorrectly placed and should have been at the level of the management committee, as the board could not have been aware of any procurement activities without it being brought to their attention.
Authority as powerful as the CG must be very careful in how things are brought to the public domain, as if misguided it can have a severe negative effect on the country. It seems we were all more interested in "blood" than the truth. This is understandable as we are in a country where the answer to crime is to hang people rather than seek better investigation. It is important that "independent and objective" investigations take precedent to public fanfare as only the truth can set us free.
Concerned Jamaican
Kingston
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magaz...TC__PROBE_.asp
Friday, December 19, 2008
Perkin's On Line last Wednesday, read an e-mail about the current Contractor General (CG) probe of the JUTC. The writer noted recent allegations that the CG was not thorough in his investigation as cause for concern, as if true and public allegations were made against board members, then it means that very soon Jamaica will only be left with "political thugs" willing to serve.
Contractor General Greg Christie
This is a very serious concern, as the very same persons Jamaica is trying to keep away from public office are the same persons that would be left. It is therefore very important to carefully analyse the charge the report was not thorough enough to arrive at the truth and so prevent perceptions such as recorded in the referenced e-mail.
The media generally has shown a lack of ability to properly analyse and investigate the charges, with the exception of very few, including the stubborn pursuit by the Observer's Ingrid Brown.
If the charge that the CG report is not thorough and the statement by the DPP could be interpreted that the report was not independently and objectively investigated, as reiterated by Wilmot Perkins, then any unfounded allegation would be no different from the abuse of poor Jamaicans by the police force. Only in this case the unwarranted abuse would be by the pen and not gun. In any case both would be an injustice perpetuated by the office of an authority figure, which some would deem state terrorism.
In order to arrive at the truth we need to look at the CG's report. The following can be asked:
1. "The primary means of data collection and evidence-gathering, which were utilised throughout the Investigation, included written requisitions/questionnaires which were issued by the OCG.". Was there other means of data collection and evidence-gathering? If so, why is it not stated for completeness? If this was the only means why not say that it was? If this was the only means then why was there no other form of evidence-gathering to corroborate this method? It would seem that a thorough investigation would not rely on only one means of data collection and evidence-gathering. If the police e.g. relied only on statements to charge someone for a crime then there would be a lot of persons walking around with criminal charges.
2. If this was the only form of evidence-gathering then as the Jamaica Observer article on Tuesday December 16, 2008 asks, why would the CG rely on the statement of someone he implied was not credible to conclude that there was only one Procurement committee meeting. This is especially in light of the same article that the set of minutes submitted to the CG for that meeting referred to a previous Finance and Procurement meeting and it should have raised the curiosity of the CG, given that he declared Bindley Sangster not credible.
3. The CG report stated that J$1.6 million was paid to Simber. There was, however, no report of who signed the cheques, which evidences money has left the company. The act of corruption is only complete when monies are paid over, so knowing who signed the cheques is an important piece of information. The signing of a contract is irrelevant if no monies pass, and it would be prudent to determine which persons signed, and the backup documents used. Was it board members that signed or management, and where is the culpability of management?
4. The CG report quotes section 17 (1) of the Public Bodies Management & Accountability Act as saying that "Every director and officer of a public body shall. (a) act honestly and in good faith in the best interests of the public body; and (b) exercise the care, diligence and skill." of a reasonably prudent person. Given the fact that the CG also says that directors were not in all instances made aware of the award of contracts, is it reasonable to expect that someone with no knowledge of the contract award will not be able to prevent it, especially given the fact that an executive chairman and management was in charge of operations. What evidence is there to suggest that the board did not at all times act in the best interest of the company, especially if only one form of evidence-gathering was used? It is important that evidence of them not acting in the best interest of the company is shown.
5. My understanding from the board's response, and further investigation, is that there was no committee called a Procurement committee, but rather there was an internal management committee that dealt with operational procurement activities and would make recommendations to the board's Finance and Procurement subcommittee. The subcommittee provided oversight of the procurement process, but was never responsible for the execution of procurement activities, which was carried out by the internal management committee called the Internal Evaluation Review committee [reference in the board response]. This management committee was substantially constituted as the CG report recommends, and seems to be the committee the CG was referring to as would have been responsible for procurement issues. So it is quite possible that the CG was making allegations against the wrong committee, as it is the internal committee that carried out all procurement activities and made the recommendation to the board subcommittee for subsequent recommendation to the board. This implies that if the CG had clarified the statement by the person he deemed not credible then he may have gained an appreciation of the procurement process.
6. Sangster was never chairman of the Procurement committee, but the Finance and Procurement sub-committee of the board. The chairman of the internal management committee was the late Executive Chairman.
7. It would seem Simes and Sangster may have charges to answer regarding the amended Simber returns and the signing of the quarterly contract report and the perjury charge. Whether they are criminal matters or not would seem to me a charge that can only be made after evidence is uncovered to determine what the intent was. If a man kills someone, the court will have to determine if it was murder or self-defence. The act of killing someone does not in itself make it criminal. I suspect it is this lack of evidence that led the DPP to rule that further investigations are needed.
8. There seems to have been procedural breaches in the award of the Simber contract in particular and the interim security contract. The evidence presented in the CG report supports the conclusion that the board was not made aware of some of the contracts. The CG report states that when the board became aware of the security need, it went through the proper channels and received the appropriate approvals. Again the CG report refers to the signing of the contract by management, without the knowledge of the board. This begs the question then what is the culpability of those who wrongfully initiated the contract and what was the role of the internal management committee, which should have done the necessary procurement due diligence and recommended it to the board. In fact, a listing of all outstanding contracts provided to the board's Finance and Procurement committee shortly after never listed the Simber contract, which begs the question why was this contract not listed on the requested update to the board Finance and Procurement committee.
9. One could infer from the CG report that Minister Henry lied about the Simber shareholding. Do we expect that a minister of Government is going to check everything that comes to him, or should he rely on the word of the people around him? The day we start treating each other with suspicion will be the start of a new downturn.
These questions, and the further need for investigation by the DPP, do raise questions as to the thoroughness of the CG's report. It also raises questions, as raised in Ingrid Brown's article, about the validity of previous reports and the fairness of the CG in furthering the investigations in the JUTC again. It is clear that there were procurement breaches but it seems as if the breaches were at the level of the management process and not at the board, as intimated by the CG. Further the focus of the CG on the board's sub-committee seems incorrectly placed and should have been at the level of the management committee, as the board could not have been aware of any procurement activities without it being brought to their attention.
Authority as powerful as the CG must be very careful in how things are brought to the public domain, as if misguided it can have a severe negative effect on the country. It seems we were all more interested in "blood" than the truth. This is understandable as we are in a country where the answer to crime is to hang people rather than seek better investigation. It is important that "independent and objective" investigations take precedent to public fanfare as only the truth can set us free.
Concerned Jamaican
Kingston
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magaz...TC__PROBE_.asp
Comment