GOVERNMENT members of the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament on Tuesday expressed ‘regret’ that Opposition members chose to reject the main report on the Sandals Whitehouse hotel project, after months spent trying to unearth the reasons for the US$43 million overrun on the venture.

In a minority report to the committee on Tuesday, the Opposition members led by Audley Shaw repeated calls for a financial audit to determine the actual cause of the overrun as well as a forensic financial audit.

According to the Opposition, the main report was overrun by conclusions designed to appease without holding anyone culpable or pinpointing the cause for the overruns.

But in its main report, government members slammed the Opposition claiming that it was “insistent on inclusions which were decidedly one sided,” in its attribution of blame .

In addition, it said while at the outset of the deliberations, there were “areas of disagreement on important issues between the main parties constructing the hotel”, the agreement was that where there was “credible independent evidence on those areas of disagreement”, reliance would be placed on the independent evidence.

Furthermore, government members said based on the fact that the issue was before the Supreme Court, extra care had been taken so as not to “trespass on the court’s jurisdiction”.

Since September of 2006 partners – the state-run Urban Development Corporation (UDC), the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ) and Gorstew, the holding company for Sandals, have been at loggerheads as to who should be blamed for the overspending on the project.

But according to the report, “only faulty budgeting, poor management, corruption, or a combination of the three,” could have accounted for the project which was originally budgeted to cost US$70 million ending up at US$113 million.

Furthermore, it said owners Ackendown Newtown “did not prudently manage their investment” citing a “nonchalant approach to board meetings with a hiatus of fourteen months between formal meetings”.

“Had there been proper board meetings, the owners would have known that the unrealistic budget of US$70 million was being exceeded earlier in the project cycle,” the report said.

In addition, it said it was undeniable that the UDC and Nevalco “exhibited shortcomings in the management of the project”.

As regards the contractor general’s report that procurement guidelines were breached, the report said this was “inaccurate”.

“Even if we relied entirely on what he reported, there was no evidence of corruption; neither was there any such evidence adduced before us,” the report said.

Finally, it said based on the evidence, there was nothing to indicate that any of the public officers involved with the project obtained any personal gain.

The committee will meet again Tuesday to sign off on both the minority report from the opposition members, as well as the original or majority report which is supported by the Government members.