FINSAC Chairman rebuffs calls for termination

[Karl]

A hear yuh, boss!

[Karl]

'Sham enquiry' - AJ

'Sham enquiry' - AJ says FINSAC commissioners carrying too much baggage

Published: Monday | January 25, 2010

Mark Beckford, Staff Reporter

( L - R ) Ross, Carey, Henriques, Nicholson
Stopping short of calling for its abandonment, Opposition Spokesman on Justice, A.J. Nicholson, has called the Financial Sector Adjustment Company (FINSAC) commission of enquiry a "sham".


In an interview with The Gleaner yesterday, Nicholson said the People's National Party (PNP) believed the integrity of the enquiry had been jeopardised by conflicts of interest.


"It is our view that the entire commission is conflicted, as (far as) two of the commissioners are concerned. In the case of Commissioner (Charles) Ross, for all of the period of the 18 years that the PNP was in government, he was on talk radio and in the press.


"(He) railed against the economic policies that were pursued by the then government. How then now can you ask him to deal with and report on what is essentially the economic policies, certainly a significant part of the economic policies, of the government of the 1990s?" he queried.


Not an advocate

Ross yesterday rejected Nicholson's comments, saying he was "not an advocate for anyone's causes".


"Mr Nicholson's memory is better than mine, as far as I'm concerned. What we have to address are the terms of reference, which is quite broad. As commissioners, we are sitting there and we are enquiring and looking at the evidence before us and various people will come and say what they have to say," he said.


Ross further said he was had not been affected by FINSAC, the Government's bailout
restructuring arm and the radio programme he hosted on RJR was taken off air before the financial meltdown occurred in the 1990s.


Nicholson, who served in the Patterson and Simpson Miller administrations as justice minister and attorney general, also took aim at the commission's chairman, retired Justice Boyd Carey: "As far as Justice Carey is concerned, we are satisfied that he, too, is conflicted. We are satisfied that he had a debt with the Century National Bank, he and his wife, and in any event, where the question of a conflict of interest arises, in all circumstances, he should not have allowed it to come this far. He should have recused himself."


Carey, however, defended himself last week, saying there "was no debt to begin with".


Strange bed fellows
Nicholson also had a complaint against adviser to the commission, prominent attorney-at-law R.N.A. Henriques.


"He was a director of Century National Bank, one of the banks that failed and one of the banks that was intervened in. In those circumstances, I don't see how he could see himself fit to be part of such an enquiry when the very bank of which he was a member of the board was FINSAC'd."


Henriques, in response, said he ceased being a member of the Century National board in 1989, "long before" the FINSAC episode occurred.
"I see no conflict whatsoever and see that as an absurd comment by Mr Nicholson," he said.


Nicholson said the PNP also had a problem with the tone of the commission, as well as its terms of reference and conduct, such as allowing members of the public to field questions and "the vast amount of money spent on conducting this commission of enquiry."


Last week, it was revealed that the enquiry would cost taxpayers upwards of $80 million. Carey will be paid $15.12 million for 70 "man days".
The commission of enquiry, which began last September, was set up to find out the reasons for the meltdown of the financial sector in the mid- to late 1990s.


mark.beckford@gleanerjm.com


http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/glean...ead/lead2.html

[Don1]

technically, yes....the bank is advancing funds to you.

thanks!

maybe someone should so inform Justice Carey!

[Karl]

Observer Editorial ...political football with the Finsac

Editorial
Playing political football with the Finsac Enquiry

Thursday, January 28, 2010

IT would have been unrealistic, naïve even, to expect that the Finsac Commission of Enquiry would have been bereft of our customary politicking. But in this space, hope springs eternal.

The circumstances under which the Commission had its genesis had, perhaps, signalled the troubles to come. There is no agreement and might never be any, on the reason or reasons for the financial meltdown in the 1990s.

For former Finance Minister Dr Omar Davies and the administration under which the crash of many financial institutions occurred, it was largely the fault of poor management of money and bad business practices.
Finsac, the Financial Adjustment Company, therefore, was necessary and had in effect saved a situation that could have been much worse but for its intervention.

On the other hand, those who lost their investment, life's savings, and pride along with it, are adamant that exorbitant interest rates, which they attribute to government policies, are the culprit. They also question the way the assets of the failed financial institutions were disposed of.

Of course, the fact that the then Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) promised, some would say threatened, to launch an inquiry into the matter, if it won the elections, and has now carried out its promise, immediately made it a partisan political issue.

It seems that no issue, no matter how important it is to the forward movement of this country, can escape the national pastime of playing political football.

We had hoped that the Finsac Commission of Enquiry would have been able to provide the answers that all well-thinking Jamaicans want about why the bottom fell out of the mostly indigenous financial institutions.
It came at a time when Jamaican ingenuity was being hailed, when national pride soared because Jamaicans were in charge of institutions which had been dominated by foreign owners for decades before.

But the fact that those that remained largely in foreign hands, operating in a similar environment, including government policies, but did not go under, seemed to suggest that something had gone awry. We would like to know what did.

We do not wish to believe that all those Jamaicans who risked their life's savings into those ventures were poor, irresponsible managers who made bad financial decisions. Still, we would like to know why so many of the key players are shunning the inquiry.

Did Dr Davies save Jamaica, as he may well have, or did he put us on a path to destruction? Many Jamaicans would like to know.

The great thing about a commission of enquiry is that it is not a court of law and as such its findings are not legally binding. That allows it to be an excellent mechanism for unearthing the facts of a situation.

But that is only if it is allowed to do that fact-finding work in good faith. Unfortunately, that is not now the case with the Finsac Commission, which has become a political football.

Yet, we believe it is still possible to recover lost ground. Scrapping the Commission is not the answer. All that does is to suggest that we, as a people, do not have it in us to look back at our failures, in order to prevent their recurrence. And that we remain slaves to our politics.

Unless there is demonstrable justification not to, retired Justice Boyd Carey and his commissioners should be afforded the greatest level of co-operation by all in carrying out their fact-finding work.
That is, if there is nothing to hide.


http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/edito...jan-28_7365782

[Gamma]

Karl,

I agree in large part.

What is obvious to me is that there are forces who do not want an inquiry. Why?

[Mosiah]

What are those forces?

Why aren't Century and Eagle Merchant Bank there?

[Gamma]

not sure what those forces represent but i see it.......

[Karl]

...and that is the real problem Boyd Carey has -

...retired Justice Boyd Carey and his commissioners should be afforded the greatest level of co-operation by all in carrying out their fact-finding work

.

That is, if there is nothing to hide.

...and - ...the Finsac Commission of Enquiry would have been able to provide the answers that all well-thinking Jamaicans want about why the bottom fell out of the mostly indigenous financial institutions.

So far Justice Boyd Carey has done nothing to steer the Commission of Enquiry towards a search for why companies went under during those times.

You have the ridiculous situation of a parade of persons before the commission who have run their businesses into the ground, and others who had gone into businesses without proper due diligence and proper planning wringing their hands claiming they had no part in their failures and as they do that not one member of the commission asks any question relevant to reasons why the business was formed, pre-planning & forward planning and business strategy, market research, etc...

...environment in which the business model was conceived, created and once created, operated...and the manner of that operation.

So far no member of the Commission of Enquiry has, by action, expressed any interest in finding out what it was that caused the meltdown and failure of any of the businesses.

There is no interest shown, save and except to have the persons who were failures bash the government of the day. If that is what the members of the commission and some others perceive to be the purpose of the commission then...the commission is a waste and Boyd Carey and his fellow commission members can go to hell because they sure as hell, if we go by what has been reported in the media as gospel, have not asked one question in Jamaica's interest.

[Lazie]

...and that is the real problem Boyd Carey has -



So far Justice Boyd Carey has done nothing to steer the Commission of Enquiry towards a search for why companies went under during those times.

You have the ridiculous situation of a parade of persons before the commission who have run their businesses into the ground, and others who had gone into businesses without proper due diligence and proper planning wringing their hands claiming they had no part in their failures and as they do that not one member of the commission asks any question relevant to reasons why the business was formed, pre-planning & forward planning and business strategy, market research, etc...

...environment in which the business model was conceived, created and once created, operated...and the manner of that operation.

So far no member of the Commission of Enquiry has, by action, expressed any interest in finding out what it was that caused the meltdown and failure of any of the businesses.

There is no interest shown, save and except to have the persons who were failures bash the government of the day. If that is what the members of the commission and some others perceive to be the purpose of the commission then...the commission is a waste and Boyd Carey and his fellow commission members can go to hell because they sure as hell, if we go by what has been reported in the media as gospel, have not asked one question in Jamaica's interest.

Do you make this stuff? Why don't you wait until the exercise is over to reach yuh conclusions?

[Gamma]

are you serious?

wasn't latibeaudiere to have been a witness and instead his deputy was called? didn't his deputy keep saying he doesn't know he wasn't there...didn't you say there should be a paper trail....., wasn't omar davies a witness? much more has taken place than "parading persons who lost their business".

it seems fairly thorough so far....my reservations have to do with carey's CD's and the overdraft.....i see NOTHING wrong with HOW the inquiry has been conducted to date.

i would add that i seem to recall carey chastising some of the counsel for using delaying tactics (which would seem to inure to carey's benefit...the more days the more he gets paid).

i am sure that thare may be more compelling arguments than this drivel, but then you chose to focus on a loan that never was to prove conflict of interest or something...not sure what.

[Karl]

Do you make this stuff? Why don't you wait until the exercise is over to reach yuh conclusions?

You did read , "so far"...and if the media reports are correct?
...and would you care to remind us, how long has the hearings been going on?

Further, as I said I have not seen written or heard any questions that would be beneficial to discovering what when wrong in/with each of the bussineses that failed. If you have, you may care to share with us what those were?

[Lazie]

You did read , "so far"...and if the media reports are correct?
...and would you care to remind us, how long has the hearings been going on?

Further, as I said I have not seen written or heard any questions that would be beneficial to discovering what when wrong in/with each of the bussineses that failed. If you have, you may care to share with us what those were?

Because yuh not paying attention. Gamma answered you in his previous post. You only paying attention to those that support your stance against the inquiry ... no wonder you're so misinformed.

[Karl]

Karl,

I agree in large part.

What is obvious to me is that there are forces who do not want an inquiry. Why?

Let me put it to you this way - If you were the Chairman
I have absolute confidence that by this time you would have;
i) drawn up guidelines that would provide a clear path to searching for what went wrong;

ii) create a list of experts in the various disciplines on the business entity immediately before you. You would probe how it was created and what would be the norm...plus how it was 'run' and what would be considered 'best suited' in the climate within which the business was operated.

You would also request of certain individuals who were essential to the operations of the failed entity to attend and give information on their functions and how such functions were performed...etc., etc.

In other words, you would allow the 'failures' to come and vent and them cross-examined on what they said and questioned on 'that not said'/i.e. ask questions that would naturally follow...all towards determining what went wrong/what contributed to the 'failures' and the 'meltdown' such that the job...your job of determining reasons for the failures and meltdown had 'all the facts/reasons' and thus your recommendations on what to do to prevent a recurrence would be based on a sound foundation...that recommendations would be sensible suggestions.

No way would you not look on "the how" of business plan and operations of the failed entities in some in-depth manner. Where do you see...where do we see...after this long drawn out period...Justice Boyd Carey doing anything like that...or making preparations to do that? How can you move along without asking the tough questions of these "failed managers, etc." on how the failed businesses were created and operated?

It may even be for any set of reasons that some of those businesses were doomed to failure as they may have been put together by naive individuals who did not have sufficient grasp of the business being undertaken? ...point is let good investigation take us wherever it must.

Aside:
I am sure we can all see, if we only view the matter of these failures, through political lens...that the conclusions could be failures by lack of planning, failures of management, unforeseen and sudden changes in the business environment or a combination of factors...the chips should fall where they should. ...and to that end Boyd Carey owe us a good job!

I have not a problem with the salaries these commissioners are receiving...but I want 'value for money'.

[Gamma]

you have a copy of his guideline so far? care to share it?

i am not sure that you grasp how this functions....do you remember the 9-11 inquiry? it was not until the report came out that everything that went on was put into context.

unfortunately, the commission may become derailed so there may never be a report...

[Karl]

...the Commission of Enquiry so far is doing nothing to get at the cause for the failures and meltdown!

...unless you believe the reasons stated for its creation i.e. get at the cause for the failures and meltdown! and prevent same from ever happening again are 'not it'?