Tweet
BOJ governor's emoluments: Who is responsible?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Corrective measures to ensure non-recurrence of the kind of salary paid to the former Bank of Jamaica (BOJ) governor, Mr Derick Latibeaudiere, cannot be subject to the usual nine-day wonder, where there is great hullabaloo and then nothing.
We maintain that if correct, at $38 million per annum, Mr Latibeaudiere's emoluments were completely unreasonable, both by Jamaican and international standards. If, in addition, he had a loan of over $50 million and an exhaustive list of perks, these too were beyond what is reasonable. If there is another large sum due for the rest of the contract which runs until 2011, this may be unavoidable, even if not reasonable.
Prime Minister Bruce Golding has correctly put an end to this untenable situation. But this is not enough, because the BOJ must be free of this mess so that it can function effectively. The new governor must not be burdened with clearing the debris of the debacle.
Moreover, there must be an investigation to find out how it happened and to recommend measures to ensure that it does not happen again. This matter requires a forensic audit and the attention of the contractor general to establish what is the total amount of money involved for emoluments, rental, perks, loans and gratuity.
The country needs answers to the following questions:
1. Why certain key provisions of the contract were open-ended, allowing the possibility of abuse? Whose responsibility was it to interpret the open-ended clauses of the contract and was it in fact the prerogative of the governor?
2. Did the governor set his own rental, and if so, why was this allowed?
3. Did former Finance Minister Dr Omar Davies approve the governor's contract without the concurrence of the Cabinet or BOJ? If so, why? After all, there is nothing about the affairs of state that the Cabinet is not entitled to know.
4. Did former Minister Davies approve a loan for the governor without the knowledge of the BOJ board? If so, for how much and how did the loan move from its original figure to $50 million? Are there any guidelines for such loans, eg the BOJ staff mortgage facility or in the governor's contract or the commercial banking sector? What conditions pertain, ie collateral, duration and interest rate? Is the loan still outstanding or has it been repaid? If not, when?
5. Was there any wrongdoing? Was it mismanagement, was it negligence, was it excess, or was it greed?
Dr Davies and Mr Latibeaudiere are honourable men and the reputation of honourable men must be cleared of innuendo, rumour and allegations. Only the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth can do this. The truth will set these honourable men free and allow them to continue fulfilling their expressed commitment to put the good of the country above everything else, including their own good.
We consider it another sad day for the People's National Party when Mr Mark Golding and Mr Peter Bunting made their puerile attempt to defend the indefensible, while Dr Davies was reportedly in Washington, DC of all places.
Ironic that in his absence those who could aspire to replace him were going through the motions of defending him. This is an example of how party loyalty destroys the integrity and credibility of politicians.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/edito...SPONSIBLE_.asp
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Corrective measures to ensure non-recurrence of the kind of salary paid to the former Bank of Jamaica (BOJ) governor, Mr Derick Latibeaudiere, cannot be subject to the usual nine-day wonder, where there is great hullabaloo and then nothing.
We maintain that if correct, at $38 million per annum, Mr Latibeaudiere's emoluments were completely unreasonable, both by Jamaican and international standards. If, in addition, he had a loan of over $50 million and an exhaustive list of perks, these too were beyond what is reasonable. If there is another large sum due for the rest of the contract which runs until 2011, this may be unavoidable, even if not reasonable.
Prime Minister Bruce Golding has correctly put an end to this untenable situation. But this is not enough, because the BOJ must be free of this mess so that it can function effectively. The new governor must not be burdened with clearing the debris of the debacle.
Moreover, there must be an investigation to find out how it happened and to recommend measures to ensure that it does not happen again. This matter requires a forensic audit and the attention of the contractor general to establish what is the total amount of money involved for emoluments, rental, perks, loans and gratuity.
The country needs answers to the following questions:
1. Why certain key provisions of the contract were open-ended, allowing the possibility of abuse? Whose responsibility was it to interpret the open-ended clauses of the contract and was it in fact the prerogative of the governor?
2. Did the governor set his own rental, and if so, why was this allowed?
3. Did former Finance Minister Dr Omar Davies approve the governor's contract without the concurrence of the Cabinet or BOJ? If so, why? After all, there is nothing about the affairs of state that the Cabinet is not entitled to know.
4. Did former Minister Davies approve a loan for the governor without the knowledge of the BOJ board? If so, for how much and how did the loan move from its original figure to $50 million? Are there any guidelines for such loans, eg the BOJ staff mortgage facility or in the governor's contract or the commercial banking sector? What conditions pertain, ie collateral, duration and interest rate? Is the loan still outstanding or has it been repaid? If not, when?
5. Was there any wrongdoing? Was it mismanagement, was it negligence, was it excess, or was it greed?
Dr Davies and Mr Latibeaudiere are honourable men and the reputation of honourable men must be cleared of innuendo, rumour and allegations. Only the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth can do this. The truth will set these honourable men free and allow them to continue fulfilling their expressed commitment to put the good of the country above everything else, including their own good.
We consider it another sad day for the People's National Party when Mr Mark Golding and Mr Peter Bunting made their puerile attempt to defend the indefensible, while Dr Davies was reportedly in Washington, DC of all places.
Ironic that in his absence those who could aspire to replace him were going through the motions of defending him. This is an example of how party loyalty destroys the integrity and credibility of politicians.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/edito...SPONSIBLE_.asp
Comment