Barring Aubyn Hill from public boards

Dr Raulston Nembhard

Monday, September 20, 2010

In private or in public I have been one of the staunchest supporters of the work of Mr Greg Christie, the country's tenacious contractor general. He has approached his work with great zeal fully cognisant of the tremendous responsibilities that are on his shoulders in ensuring that government contracts are handled with fairness and transparency. And he is called upon to do this in an environment of pernicious corruption where the abdication of personal moral responsibility for one's actions is no longer a philosophy that finds comfort in the hearts of many of my countrymen.

I am on record in saying that in his zeal to restrain the heartless and greedy, I would rather see Mr Christie overreaching than under-reaching and thus allowing corruption to go unchecked to the peril of the Jamaican people. Notwithstanding all this, Mr Christie has to be careful that he does not become a victim of his own success. In other words, he has to be careful that nitpicking on certain issues does not detract from the excellent work he performs. His ruling in the recently concluded investigation into the award of the contract to Mr Aubyn Hill to divest the sugar cane industry is a case in point. I myself had raised concern about what appeared to be a conflict of interest on the part of Mr Hill being asked to divest an entity in which he was a major player. As it turned out, it was not that he was an employer of the Ministry of Agriculture, but an independent contractor who could have his own approach to doing things without the usual oversight of his superiors in a ministry as a servant of the people. The fact that Mr Hill might have given free service in this endeavour does not nullify this concern.

Mr Christie is concerned in his report that he was not told the truth that Mr Hill was not an employer but an independent contractor. The minister of agriculture and his permanent secretary are fingered in this accusation. Mr Christie leaves no room that the ministry of agriculture could have made a genuine mistake in having Mr Hill noted as an employer and not an independent contractor with the ministry. Why nitpick on this to the point of suggesting that something unlawful or corrupt might have been done by the minister and the permanent secretary? Could a genuine mistake have been made here, Mr Christie, and if yes, why not give them the benefit of the doubt instead of ruling that their intention, stated or implied, was to corrupt the process? There are other questions that the CG's ruling raises. Does Mr Christie really believe that his conclusions regarding Mr Hill are sufficient to bar him from serving on all government bodies? For this in itself is a very serious accusation about which more needs to be forthcoming to the public. Outside of that to which his report speaks, are there specific instances of corruption, felonious behaviour or high misdemeanours on the part of Mr Hill that should disbar him from service on public boards; that ostensibly make him such a grave threat perhaps to the public purse or public order? You and your office, Mr Christie, were privileged to information that the public was not privy to. You can help us by giving a more substantial disclosure of why you should make such a grave ruling concerning Mr Hill. You have placed his integrity at great risk by your seeming declaration that he is not fit to serve on public boards. I hold no brief for Mr Hill, but if you know that there are cogent reasons why he should not so serve, you owe it to him and to us to say so. The principles of natural justice would demand this. The principles of fairness certainly do. My belief is that your report is not convincing that such a drastic conclusion should be drawn.

Keep NHT under OPM

The public sector transformation team has recommended that the NHT ought to be placed under the Ministry of Housing and Water. I agree with Mr Howard Mitchell and those who are against this move. I am not even sure that it ought to remain under the OPM, but at present it is better for it to be there than under any of the ministries. Under the ministry of Housing and Water such an important body would not enjoy the independence of decision making that it deserves. Its work would be hobbled by ministerial fiat, and bear in mind that the NHT would be just one subject under the ministry's already unwieldy portfolio.

The minister already has his hands full dealing with the vexing problem of water and the burgeoning squatter settlements all over the country. To add the Trust to his portfolio is to render that portfolio redundant, not because he would not want to keep it front and centre, but because he would be too distracted by the other responsibilities under his portfolio and others that the transformation team want to dump in his lap. The Trust must be allowed to ferret out greater economies of scale to provide housing solutions for the great demand for housing solutions that exists in the country. Removing the Trust at this time from the OPM will not achieve these scales.

stead6655@aol.com

www.drraulston.com

Do you feel buying into Facebook now is a good investment for the long-run?
	Yes
	No

View Results
Results published weekly in Sunday Finance

Username:
Password:

GCT to go down, white rum prices going up

Barring Aubyn Hill from public boards