$250,000 contracts for dons Cabinet decision was to help violence-plagued communities, says government official

[MdmeX]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>$250,000 contracts for dons</SPAN>
<SPAN class=Subheadline>Cabinet decision was to help violence-plagued communities, says government official</SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Balford Henry, Observer writer
Friday, November 17, 2006
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>A Cabinet decision in July 2001 which allowed contracts for special employment projects, costing up to $250,000, to be issued without tender was primarily to assist violence-plagued communities controlled by dons, a senior government official admitted yesterday.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"It was really for community projects where you know you have a don man with a gang and guns, where you know if you go down there di man dem will kill you. So what the Cabinet did was to give approval, interim approval, for contracts up to $250,000 for special community-based projects," the official, who asked not to be named, told the Observer yesterday.<P class=StoryText align=justify>However, since then, the decision has come to be interpreted as meaning contracts for goods, services and works, "which is not what it was intended to mean," he said, pointing out that the decision has been taken out of context.<P class=StoryText align=justify>He said that most, if not all, of the Cabinet decisions made "prior to the Cabinet approving the procurement guidelines" have been superseded by the guidelines. However, the Cabinet Decision No 28/01 dated July 30, 2001, which authorised the issuing of the special employment contracts, was made some two months after the Ministry of Finance and Planning issued the procurement handbook with the new guidelines in May 2001.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Yesterday, minister of state in the Ministry of Local Government, Harry Douglas, distributed an advisory from Solicitor-General Michael Hylton confirming that the Cabinet decision was in relation to "special employment programmes, drain cleaning and small emergency works falling below the upper limit of $250,000", and that the contractors can be chosen without the need to go to tender.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The advisory was in response to a query raised by Opposition Leader Bruce Golding in the House of Representatives on November 7, following a statement from minister of local government and environment, Dean Peart, on his ministry's audit of the St Catherine, St Mary and Westmoreland parish councils.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Golding questioned why the audits had indicted the councils for issuing contracts up to that limit without tender, when the Cabinet had approved the action.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In response, Peart told the House that while the Contractor-General had suggested that all contracts must meet procurement requirements, he realised that the councils would have some difficulty with that policy.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"I thought that was ridiculous," Peart told the House on November 7. "So I called the Contractor-General and told him that we had to have a figure that they can work in small communities. We arrived at a figure of not $250,000, but $100,000. Parish councils and the ministry agreed on that."
But Golding said that a Cabinet decision could not be overruled by the minister and the councils.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Yesterday, Contractor-General Greg Christie wrote to radio talk show host Wilmot Perkins explaining that he had never agreed to a limit of $100,000, and added that he was not even aware of the Cabinet decision on the $250,000 figure.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The July 2001 Cabinet decision said that it considered the difficulties faced by central and local government agencies in acting with dispatch in response to emergencies, complaints from communities of limited participation in solving internal problems, difficulty in implementing traditional employment generation programmes in a manner which preserved the original intent

[Lazie]

RE: $250,000 contracts for dons Cabinet decision was to help violence-plagued communities, says government official

The more I read and hear about all this, it is looking like Peart and company tried to use the Parish Councils to get back at the JLP for Trafiguria.

Christie and Douglas clash - Junior Minister questions CG's competence
published: Friday | November 17, 2006 <DIV class=KonaBody>

Dionne Rose, Staff Reporter

A war of words has developed between the Junior Local Government Minister Harry Douglas and Contractor General Greg Christie over procurement procedures to be applied to programmes under the purview of parish councils.

Mr. Douglas went as far as to tell Mr. Christie that "your skirt seems to be showing," to which Christie replied "I own no skirts".

Distressed and dismayed

The brouhaha started yesterday when Mr. Douglas questioned the Contractor General's competence in the post when, in a statement issued to the media, he said he was "distressed and dismayed" after he read an e-mail sent to Power 106 talk show host, Wilmot Perkins.

The email, sent by Mr. Christie to the host of the popular talk show, Perkins Online, claimed the Contractor General was not until Monday aware of a 2001 Cabinet decision on procurement procedures, which Local Government Minister Dean Peart said last week had been discussed with him.

In Parliament last week Tuesday, Opposition Leader Bruce Golding took Mr. Peart to task when he pointed out that the Cabinet decision, based on a July 2001 submission, had removed the previous requirement of competitive tender for contracts amounting to less than $250,000.

The competitive tender for such contracts is at the heart of the disputed audit of Jamaica Labour Party-controlled parish councils, which have been accused of breaching procurement procedures.

In disagreeing with Mr. Golding's assertions in Parliament, Mr. Peart had claimed that he was informed by the Contractor General that contracts, regardless of their value should be put to competitive bidding.

In his explanation, Mr. Peart had suggested the Cabinet decision had been reversed after a conversation between himself and Mr. Christie.

But yesterday in the e-mail read on Perkins Online, Mr. Christie denied he had any knowledge of the Cabinet decision and that he had never spoken with Mr. Peart about the matter.

"I wish to categorically state that I have never met the Hon. Minister nor have I ever had any such discussion or agreement with the Minister as alleged," the Contractor General said.

"I shall wish to state also that a copy of the document embodying the referenced Cabinet decision was first shown to Mr. Percival Griffiths, the Director of Licences and Permits in the OCG, on Thursday, November 9, 2006."

The Contractor General said further checks within his office had revealed that there was no evidence the Cabinet decision had been communicated to the OCG. He said the first time he saw the document was on Monday, November13.

However, in his issued statement, Mr. Douglas was critical of the Contractor General, arguing that "any reasonable person must conclude that Mr. Greg Christie ... is administering an Act of Parliament and its various amendments which he does not understand or know"

The junior local government minister added: "Is the answer blown in the wind? Mr. Christie, your skirt seems to be showing."

Mr. Douglas told The Gleaner last night that he stood by his statement.

Said he: "The statement is a statement of fact. The Cabinet decision is five years and three months old".

He said that Mr. Christie, in taking on the job as Contractor General, should have acquainted himself with the information.

"For him to acknowledge that (this is) the first time he is seeing this letter ... that is speaking volumes because he is administering justice and an Act of Cabinet is five years and three months."

The Contractor General, who s

[Lazie]

RE: $250,000 contracts for dons Cabinet decision was to help violence-plagued communities, says government official

What I find most amusing is that a PNP Junior Minister, is questioning someone's competence. Harry Douglas is a very humorous character, but hearing him yesterday trying to throw jabs then cry cree was rather pathetic.

[Mosiah]

RE: $250,000 contracts for dons Cabinet decision was to help violence-plagued communities, says government official

<DIV>Lazie, let's just hope that this or Trafigura bring the PNP to its knees and out the door!</DIV><DIV></DIV><DIV>Yes, balla, I mean that. Enuff is damn enuff!</DIV>

[Balla]

RE: $250,000 contracts for dons Cabinet decision was to help violence-plagued communities, says government official

You think I care at rat's ass (about your view that is ) - I am not surprised either

[T.K.]

RE: $250,000 contracts for dons Cabinet decision was to help violence-plagued communities, says government official

Hehe....You see Lazie what I have been talking about? These days Balla nuh ramp fi clawt a bwoy yu 'no.

That is why I stay out of his way. Is fraid mi fraid a him! - T.K.

[Lazie]

RE: $250,000 contracts for dons Cabinet decision was to help violence-plagued communities, says government official

the response surprise me. Look like him running out of defensive responses.

[T.K.]

RE: $250,000 contracts for dons Cabinet decision was to help violence-plagued communities, says government official

Lazie (11/17/2006)the response surprise me. Look like him running out of defensive responses.

No sah....Balla a badman fram long time! Is jus' now him firing pure shot inna every and any direction. Nobody is safe. That is why when I see him coming down my side of the streetI just cross over to the other side before he comes too close. Is fraid mi fraid! - T.K.