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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

“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.

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”.

“Obviously, if it was submitted it would have raised many alarm bells, no wonder it wasn’t submitted,” Chuck told the Committee.

Chuck’s alarm was, however, dismissed by Government Member John Junor who said the report was “valueless”.

“I have read that report, it adds not one iota…We’re wasting time, the real issue in the matter is what is responsible for the costs and if there is value on the ground for the taxpayers’ money,” Junor argued.

He noted, however, that he had no quarrel with the report being taken before the committee as he was of the opinion that all views should contend, but took issue with Lynch’s position that he was not in agreement with all the conclusions which were arrived at in the draft report.

It was agreed that the report would be circulated to committee members but it was still uncertain whether Hylton would at some time be required to appear before the committee.

The matter resurfaced when assistant general manager of the NIBJ Denise Arana, appearing before the committee last December, said she had been advised by an individual from Hylton’s office that a report had been prepared and submitted. She was, however, “unable to recall” which individual had volunteered the information and told the committee that this information was not received in writing. The NIBJ also said it never received a copy of the final facilitator’s report.

Headed by Chairman Gordon ‘Butch’ Stewart himself, the high-powered Gorstew team in its second appearance before the PAC stuck to its original position that the cost overruns on the project were the fault of project managers, the UDC and its on-the-ground representative Nevalco Consultants Limited.

In the matter which is now before the courts, the Hotel’s management is suing the UDC for losses it says it suffered when the hotel chain had to refund huge sums of money to early guests, and the over 20-month delay in completing the hotel and substandard finishes and furnishings features.

According to the hotel management, even though the project exceeded the original US$70 million budget resulting in some US$43 million in overruns, it was still not complete and “there is still more money to be spent”.