Tweet
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Hylton's decision to abort report 'shocked' Gorstew</SPAN>
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>ALICIA DUNKLEY, Observer staff reporter
Thursday, January 11, 2007
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=208 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>HYLTON... was appointed by Patterson as facilitator to broker a settlement on issues being disputed by Ackendown Newtown Development Company</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>CHAIRMAN of the Port Authority of Jamaica Noel Hylton has again insisted he had forwarded no report to former Prime Minister PJ Patterson summarising the findings of an enquiry which he led into the US$43 million cost overruns on the Sandals Whitehouse hotel project.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In a statement to the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament which has been questioning the parties involved in the project since September last year, Hylton said that "no report of any kind relating to (his) function as facilitator was ever submitted by (himself) or (his) office to Patterson at any time", and that he did not "authorise anyone to submit or publish any report concerning Sandals Whitehouse".<P class=StoryText align=justify>Hylton was appointed by Patterson as facilitator to broker a settlement on issues being disputed by Ackendown Newtown Development Company (ANDCO) - the partnership involving Gorstew, the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ) and the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) which was formed to build and run the hotel.<P class=StoryText align=justify>But according to Hylton's statement, after several meetings and many discussions with all the relevant parties, he was "unable to fulfil" his mandate and as such did not submit a final report.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The Port Authority Chairman, however, admitted to having prepared a "draft report" but said he had never authorised the issuance of the document nor signed it, making its contents redundant.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"In the circumstances, the draft report which I had prepared became meaningless; I am aware that the draft is in the public domain, even though personally I did not issue same nor did I authorise its issuance...The document is not signed by me," the statement said.<P class=StoryText align=justify>According to Hylton, "since there was no meeting of the minds and a forensic audit was ordered", he did not take it as necessary to submit the report to Patterson. Furthermore he said the report did not represent an agreed position.<P class=StoryText align=justify>But Gorstew's Director Patrick Lynch yesterday said Hylton's independent decision to "abort" the report came as "a great surprise and a real shock" as Gorstew had not been informed of this final decision.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"It seems to me that in withdrawing, Hylton would have said it to all the parties...he was not appointed by just the prime minister...seems to me the thing was aborted without consultation even though we consulted and agreed to his appointment," Lynch said. Furthermore, he said, he believed the report was still relevant in determining the reason for the cost overruns.<P class=StoryText align=justify>But Government committee members argued that the report was irrelevant since it had not been signed off on or officially circulated, despite arguments from Opposition members who insisted that the document be brought before the committee as it would provide further insight into the matter. According to Opposition Member Delroy Chuck he had read the report and was "alarmed at what it contained".<P class=StoryText align=justify>"Obviously, if it was submitted it would have raised m
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>ALICIA DUNKLEY, Observer staff reporter
Thursday, January 11, 2007
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=208 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>HYLTON... was appointed by Patterson as facilitator to broker a settlement on issues being disputed by Ackendown Newtown Development Company</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>CHAIRMAN of the Port Authority of Jamaica Noel Hylton has again insisted he had forwarded no report to former Prime Minister PJ Patterson summarising the findings of an enquiry which he led into the US$43 million cost overruns on the Sandals Whitehouse hotel project.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In a statement to the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament which has been questioning the parties involved in the project since September last year, Hylton said that "no report of any kind relating to (his) function as facilitator was ever submitted by (himself) or (his) office to Patterson at any time", and that he did not "authorise anyone to submit or publish any report concerning Sandals Whitehouse".<P class=StoryText align=justify>Hylton was appointed by Patterson as facilitator to broker a settlement on issues being disputed by Ackendown Newtown Development Company (ANDCO) - the partnership involving Gorstew, the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ) and the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) which was formed to build and run the hotel.<P class=StoryText align=justify>But according to Hylton's statement, after several meetings and many discussions with all the relevant parties, he was "unable to fulfil" his mandate and as such did not submit a final report.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The Port Authority Chairman, however, admitted to having prepared a "draft report" but said he had never authorised the issuance of the document nor signed it, making its contents redundant.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"In the circumstances, the draft report which I had prepared became meaningless; I am aware that the draft is in the public domain, even though personally I did not issue same nor did I authorise its issuance...The document is not signed by me," the statement said.<P class=StoryText align=justify>According to Hylton, "since there was no meeting of the minds and a forensic audit was ordered", he did not take it as necessary to submit the report to Patterson. Furthermore he said the report did not represent an agreed position.<P class=StoryText align=justify>But Gorstew's Director Patrick Lynch yesterday said Hylton's independent decision to "abort" the report came as "a great surprise and a real shock" as Gorstew had not been informed of this final decision.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"It seems to me that in withdrawing, Hylton would have said it to all the parties...he was not appointed by just the prime minister...seems to me the thing was aborted without consultation even though we consulted and agreed to his appointment," Lynch said. Furthermore, he said, he believed the report was still relevant in determining the reason for the cost overruns.<P class=StoryText align=justify>But Government committee members argued that the report was irrelevant since it had not been signed off on or officially circulated, despite arguments from Opposition members who insisted that the document be brought before the committee as it would provide further insight into the matter. According to Opposition Member Delroy Chuck he had read the report and was "alarmed at what it contained".<P class=StoryText align=justify>"Obviously, if it was submitted it would have raised m