THE Bureau of Standards Jamaica (BSJ) has sought the advice of the Attorney General’s Department on what action it should take in response to a $15-million lawsuit filed against it by its former head, Omer Thomas.

In the suit filed in the Supreme Court last Friday, Thomas claimed that the sum was owed to him based on contracts he had with the BSJ, which he headed for six years.

He further contended that in his second three-year contract with the BSJ, he was to be paid a basic salary of $3.9 million which should have been subject to an annual review which was never done. Thomas also claimed that his final payment upon leaving the BSJ should have amounted to over $14.8 million, but he was only paid $8.8 million.

A 2006/07 report of the Auditor General had raised concerns over whether Government financial guidelines were breached in order to make what it said were ‘improper payments’ of the $8,743,030 to Thomas between 2006 and 2007 and queried whether the amount was recovered.

Reginald Budhan, permanent secretary in the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, under which the entity falls, told Tuesday’s meeting of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament that the decision to award Thomas the payment had been taken by BSJ council members against the will of Dr Jean Dixon – who was the permanent secretary for the former Ministry of Industry, Technology, Energy and Commerce (MITEC) before it was split following the change of Government last September.

“The permanent secretary was on the board before the change and she was aware of the payments and strongly advised against the payments. She prepared a document which she provided to each board member indicating that the payment should conform to the existing contract. She also made a request to the Attorney General’s Department to have the contract reviewed and advised as to what was to be done,” Budhan told the committee.

Budhan said Dixon’s objection was overruled by the BSJ’s board, even though they had been advised of the issues and knew that the response of the Attorney General on the matter was being awaited.

Deputy Auditor General Brenton Burrell told the PAC that “the emoluments were paid in excess of what the officer was entitled to”.

Said Burrell: “It has to do with gratuity and vacation leave and retroactive salary. This was not entitled to the officer.” He added that the department had done its own computation of what Thomas was in fact entitled to.

The package which reflected ‘payments and benefits amounting to $8,743,030 were broken down into $4,457,611 for emoluments, office equipment totalling $326,249, motor vehicles costing $3,422,920 and life insurance of $536,250.

PAC chairman and former finance minister, Dr Omar Davies, was at a loss as to whether this had reflected a “miscalculation” or whether the “council decided to be generous”.

“It is astounding, the gift of office equipment; I have never heard of that being done. How did such a thing occur? I was minister for fourteen and a half years and I can’t believe these things could happen, because one of the strangest things is that central government is perceived to be more tightly run than the offshoots, and ministers and the political directorate have to follow the rules much more stringently than anybody else,” a nonplussed Davies said.

In the meantime, as to what sanctions were applicable for the decision taken by the board despite advice to the contrary, Deputy Financial Secretary Robert Martin pointed out that the Auditor General had made it quite clear that it should fall under the sanctions of the Public Bodies Management and Accountability Act.

“This is one case that should really go through the process,” Martin said.

Budhan, in responding, said the Ministry had written to the Attorney General’s Department, asking for guidance as to how to proceed.

“Since then we have been informed about the filing in the Supreme Court (by Thomas)… so we will also make a submission to the Attorney General to pursue the matter,” Budhan told the PAC.

Asked by the Observer whether the ministry would be countering Thomas’ suit, Budhan chose not to comment except to say, “The Attorney General’s Department will deal with it”.

There are, however, indications that attempts will be made to recover at least a portion of the sum. Dr Davies, who noted that the matter was far from over, said the committee would be reviewing additional documentation as well as Thomas’ contract with the BSJ which was said to be the basis on which the decision to make the payment was taken.

“You don’t have crime because of the absence of law. The only thing we have to do is respond to this, this is clear-cut, it just can’t be allowed to be like this,” Davies said.