Editorial | Hold Parliament’s bosses accountable

They mightn’t have cost the big sums that occasionally trigger an angry national venting. However, the latest management foozles at Parliament, including rookie bungling of procurement contracts, suggest the need for a deeper review, and probable overhaul, of the body’s operational system.

Indeed, in the face of this month’s revelations in an investigative report by the auditor general (AuG), and the September 2023 claim by the Integrity Commission (IC) that former House Speaker, Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert was irregularly paid a motor vehicle upkeep while she was assigned one the parliament’s fleet, perhaps Chief Personnel Officer at the Public Services Commission (PSC) should insist on special management and systems training for the management and supervisory staff at the legislature.

This training should include the roles and obligations of accountable officers; the fiduciary responsibility and duty of care public servants have to taxpayers when dealing with State assets; basic record-keeping; and the dos and don’ts of public sector procurement.

Over the past week, this newspaper has highlighted three aspects of the special audit into certain operational activities at the legislature, none of which, happily, discovered any hand to be blatantly in the cookie jar. In one case, though, a public employee appeared to have gained benefits, beyond his formal emoluments, through his private use of an official vehicle.

This issue, however, is not about the scale of the breaches, the limited cost to taxpayers, or even the fact that the intent, in some instances, may have been to save the treasury money. When regulations aren’t complied with, and shortcuts are taken, systems are wont to break down, opening the way to exploitation by people of malintent, or mistakes that are costly.

CAME CLOSE ENOUGH

With respect to the latter, Parliament came close enough to nearly J$25 million of taxpayers’ money falling between the cracks, or at least the creation of an accounting conundrum, because of the responsible person’s failure to keep a close watch on credit card statements.

According to the auditor general’s report, in January of this year managers at Parliament asked the accountant general’s department to facilitate the transfer of approximately J$181,000 from its recurrent expenditure account to Scotiabank to cover credit payments. This was done.

However, the bank withdrew J$28.96 million (the US dollar equivalent of the outstanding credit card amount) from Parliament’s recurrent account and applied it to the credit card account.

Parliament did not request a correction of the error until near the end of May. The reversal (a credit balance of approximately US$177 ,000) was done in mid June, five months after the initial cock-up.

“The over-payment on the credit card raised questions regarding the regular monitoring function over the credit, as is stipulated by Section 5.12.9” of the Financial Administration and Audit Act. Those regulations call for monthly reconciliation of credit card accounts.

But this was not the only failure of oversight with respect to credit cards. The regulations require that credit cards issued to public officials be terminated “immediately” on their death, resignation, retirement or are other forms of separation from the public sector.

Apparently through inadvertence, the one issued to the former Clerk to Parliament, Valarie Curtis, was only terminated two months after her retirement. While Ms Curtis turned in the card prior to her exit, it could quite possibly have been abused by others.

PROCUREMENT BREACHES

The same report noted a raft of procurement breaches – including working beginning before the contract was signed and variations approved after its completion – in a J$24 million refurbishing of Parliament’s members’ lounge. Among other shortcomings was the request, and acceptance, of a J$1 million discount on the contract on the same day it was being evaluated. That flouted the rules.

In a separate J$3 million acquisition of air conditioners for various spaces in the parliament building, the contract was implemented without the requisite formal need assessment; without receiving the required minimum three quotes when using limited bidding in procurements; and without appropriate documentation from the vendor, such as certification of serial numbers, to ensure that the asset can be traced in audits.

Another issue flagged by the audit was the use of a fleet vehicle by Parliament’s then facilities and office manager (FOM). Over 183 days between June and December in 2024, he used the 2022 Toyota Prado 173 days, “inclusive”, according to the auditor general, “of weekends and public holidays”.

“Further analysis of the times recorded in the logbook showed this vehicle was not parked at HoP (House of Parliament) at the end of the work day, but instead at the FOM’s place of abode during the night on 173 occasions”.

The absence of other reports and records made it impossible to determine the operational efficiency of the vehicles in Parliament’s fleet.

Parliament, of course, is not unique with respect to the shortcomings that were highlighted in this report or the one by the Integrity Commission on former Speaker Dalrymple Filbert. But if this can happen at Parliament, the seat of the legislature, where laws are passed and where they are expected to be respected and upheld, what might we expect of other institutions of the State.

Which is why we expect this report to be taken seriously and the accounting and responsible officers held to account.