...? - Funds from incoming phone calls at centre of brewing controversy
July 03, 2007
Conflicting views over the status of more than $28 million in legal fees that was paid to an attorney out of the Universal Access Fund in contravention of established government procurement guidelines, is at the centre of a brewing controversy.
On the one hand is Auditor General Adrian Strachan, who has maintained that all the money in the Universal Access Fund is public funds. On the other hand, Minett Palmer, the attorney-at-law who received the payments insisted that the money does not belong to the State.
"It is not a tax, which is why it does not go to (Ministry of Finance). It is not the country's money, the money belongs to the carriers. All the Fund does is administer it, it is still the carriers' money to spend on a project the carriers agree to, that is why the carriers are on the board," explained Ms. Palmer, who was a board member of the Universal Access Fund Company Limited, which manages the funds gained from the levy, when the payments were made.
On the contrary, Mr. Strachan was forthright with his views. "It is public funds. It is government revenue as described by the Financial, Administrative and Audit Act," he said.
The matter was raised by the Auditor General in his latest report. The report only covered the payments made between June 2005 and July 2006 to the tune of approximately $23.4 million for the provision of various legal and other services. However, Access to Information (ATI) documents showed that Ms. Palmer received payments up to January 2007.
Former Government Minister Colin Campbell, who previously chaired the Board of the company, signed the majority of the cheques, most of which were paid in US dollars. Ms. Palmer was also an advisor to Phillip Paulwell, the Minister of Industry, Technology, Energy and Commerce, who has portfolio responsibility for the Fund. Her contract ended in August, 2006. The Auditor General's report raised concerns about the nature of the agreement. "There was no evidence that a written contract existed setting out the deliverables and agreed rates. There was no indication that the selection of the firm, a partner of which was a member of the Company's Board of Directors, was done in the required competitive basis or the necessary approval of the National Contracts Commission and Cabinet obtained," read a section of the report.
It continued: "There was also no evidence that payments were made on the basis of deliverables provided in keeping with written terms of engagement. Given these breaches of the Government's procurement rules, I was unable to satisfy myself that the charges incurred were fair and reasonable".
At the same time, Ms. Palmer said that there was no conflict of interest because the Board of the company was aware of the agreement. While Mr. Strachan said he was relatively satisfied that there was no conflict of interest, he said that he still does not know if the country got value for money....
Author: Tyrone Reid and Edmond Campbell
Source: Jamaica Gleaner
