Chairman of Spectrum Management Authority (SMA) Trevor Forrest yesterday responded to calls from the People’s National Party (PNP) for his dismissal, in a release in which he insisted that he was not the “bad guy” being portrayed in the media.

Forrest said that the views being expressed about him in he media were being driven by “cherry-picked” e-mails, in the absence of facts and circumstances, to suggest that his actions represented “all that is wrong with administration and sound judgement in the public sector”.

He told the Jamaica Observer yesterday that the issue which sparked his discussion with former managing director of the SMA, Dr David McBean, was their different interpretation of whether a résumé from former managing director of National Energy Solutions Limited (NESOL), Carolyn Warren, which he was late in forwarding to SMA, was admissible.

“My view was that the HR policy which guided the process was not clear, on the admission of late résumés.. This led to the issue being discussed by the board and a decision taken to make the policy clear that, in the future, résumés would not be allowed after the closing date,” Forrest said yesterday.

“So out that difference of opinion, we were able to deal effectively with that issue,” Forrest stated, noting that the process, which was in effect at the time, for the employment of three senior personnel, was put on hold pending the board’s decision on the matter and résuméd after it was taken to exclude late résumés.

Forrest pointed out that the process was temporarily halted, pending the board’s decision, after which he was not aware of what became of her application.

“I don’t know what happened to her application after that. It was of no interest to me,” he added.

He said in his release that it should be noted that in the e-mail thread from which a Gleaner story exposing the opinions of Dr McBean germinated, nothing therein suggested that McBean was pressured into following the request. And when Dr McBean defended his position, nothing in the e-mail thread suggested that he was intimidated into acting on the request.

He said that equally important is the fact that their difference of opinion was not about hiring an applicant, but about a difference in opinion whether an existing policy allowed for a résumé to have been added to the candidates shortlisted for a post after the process had started.

The full text of Forrest’s release, headlined ‘Forrest Fires Back’, reads:

“I write in response to the various articles, viewpoints and innuendo from various quarters in the media, and individuals making out a rough sketch of me as the bad guy.

“Many of these viewpoints, politically driven by cherry-picked e-mails in the absence of all the facts and circumstances, suggest that my actions represent all that is wrong with administration and sound judgement in the public sector.

The Gleaner‘s crafting of the piece could also perhaps give a reasonable man the false impression that I was seeking to subvert the recruitment process and have Mrs Warren parachuted into the job. Not so!

I had no knowledge of who Carolyn Warren was; we had never met, nor did I care if she was hired for the post. Her application was based on a referral which I received before the deadline but, based on my own tardiness, forwarded to management late with the attendant request.

It also appears the Gleaner, in wanting to be sage in its analysis of the issue, read far too much into the e-mails, leading the paper to accuse me of encroachment. I reject that descriptor, especially as it emboldened the Gleaner to later on in the same editorial accuse me of overstepping my bounds.

“So, for context, I first want to start with the last e-mail exchange between myself and the MD on Sept 8, 2016, sections of which were curiously omitted in reports.

“MD. Thanks for providing this latest documentation. On reading your highlighted sections however, I still cannot find any language which ‘expressly prevents this request’. In my view it is fair to say that the current policy as stated may open itself up to misinterpretation as there is a clear difference of interpretation here.

“Accordingly, in keeping with the tenets of the Corporate Governance Framework and the roles and responsibilities of the Board and Chairman, it is clear that a review of this policy is necessary in light of the impasse that has been created. This will ensure that policy adjustments can be made in keeping with best practices so that no potential ambiguity exists either now or for future recruitment exercises. In your words, we must be pellucidly clear in our understanding and interpretations.

“With that said please put all recruitment processes on hold until this matter has been resolved at the board level. As Chairman I will notify the board members of this latest development with an eye to addressing it at the next board meeting. Additionally I ask that the Corp. Secretary place this issue on the agenda for the upcoming board meeting as its resolution is a matter of urgency.

“In the e-mail thread from which the Gleaner’s story germinated, nothing therein suggests that Dr. McBean was pressured into following the request. And when Dr. McBean defended his position, nothing in the e-mail thread suggests that he was intimidated into acting on the request.

“Regards”

“Equally important is the fact that we are not talking about a difference in opinion about hiring an applicant. We are talking about a difference in opinion over whether an existing policy allowed for a résumé to have been added to the candidates shortlisted for a post after the process had started.

“Although it is a truism, I believe it prudent for me to state that making a shortlist for a job opening is a far cry from being appointed to a job.

“The difference in opinion between myself and Dr McBean on the issue and the lack of clarity in the SMA’s Recruitment, Selection and Staffing Policy as it related to the insertion of a new résumé into an ongoing recruitment process, was enough for me to seek to have the matter addressed conclusively at the board level. This was because the difference in opinion was so stark.

“Feedback on our impasse was also received from a representative at the Public Services Commission, PSC. This, in my view, further supported my positon that there was need for review and tightening of the existing policy.

“Hence a review and revision of the SMA’s Recruitment, Selection and Staffing Policy was undertaken by the board, not just to settle the issue at hand, but also to ensure transparency and probity with any such matter in future.

“Due to the capacity in which I serve, I routinely get at least two résumés weekly. These are résumés sent by professionals seeking work or forwarded to me by colleagues and associates on behalf of such professionals. Perhaps this might now be an occupational hazard.

“Perhaps it is that I am the first Chairman in the history of public sector boards to ask for a résumé to be added to a shortlist. Or perhaps it is that such a request has never been made by any executive in the private sector in the hiring of talent.

“One thing is clear, the exchanges between myself and Dr McBean and the stances that we both took have ensured that the policy around recruitment, at least at the Spectrum Management Authority, is no longer subject to anyone’s misinterpretation”.