Log In

Reset Password
BERMUDA | RSS PODCAST

Eight slammed for not following rules

Commission of Inquiry: Robert Horton (Photograph by Akil Simmons)

A total of eight civil servants were slammed by the Commission of Inquiry over failure to follow the rules on contracts.

And one former public servant, Vic Ball, who became a One Bermuda Alliance senator after he retired, was reported to police due to “possible criminal activity” after he failed to report “a clear conflict of interest” in the awarding of a $1.4 million contract for sand and rock for road building to a company in which his father had a major interest.

Now the Commission has called for major changes — including an urgent review of personnel and processes in the public sphere.

The report published yesterday said Government should “conduct a frank, independent assessment of whether all current leaders of the Civil Service have appropriate skill sets, perspective and motivation to effect needed changes”.

It added: “If not, ascertain whether this could be improved by training.”

The Commission also called for improved accountability in the Civil Service, particularly among senior staff, tougher enforcement of Financial Instructions, which should be given legal force, and penalties for failure to disclose or attempts to conceal interests.

And it added that existing disciplinary measures and sanctions should be enforced “on a timely basis” on civil servants who fail to live up to their regulatory responsibilities.

Robert Horton, a former permanent secretary who has now retired, was criticised by the Commission for five separate failures to follow rules on procurement.

Mr Horton was said to have failed to notify the Account-General of breaches of Financial Instructions, not sought Cabinet approval and accepted ministerial interference in relation to a variety of contracts over a number of years.

He was also singled out for criticism when only the successful bidder for the contract to create a central laboratory building was told about reduced bid requirements, which gave the contender an unfair advantage.

Derrick Binns, the current Cabinet Secretary and at the time a permanent secretary, was found to have failed to notify the Accountant-General of breaches of Financial Instructions in relation to a 2007 contract for a works and engineering maintenance and stores building with a contract cost of $1.6 million and on the original 2007 contract with Landmark Lisgar to build the Dame Lois Browne-Evans Building to house courtrooms and Hamilton Police Station,

Commissioners said they were “concerned” that neither works and engineering minister Dennis Lister nor Dr Binns, then permanent secretary, “were able to recall the circumstances surrounding the award of the contract” for the maintenance and stores building.

Dr Binns was also found to have failed to flag up concerns with the minister’s proposed course of action on the courts and police building.

Marc Telemaque, now Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of National Security and later PS at tourism and transport, as well as serving a stint as Cabinet Secretary, was also picked out by commissioners.

He was criticised for failing to provide oversight to then-Director of Tourism Cherie Whitter who failed to ensure there was requisite tender information or a waiver of the tender requirement in relation to a $14 million consultancy contract with US firm Global Hue in 2009.

The commission in addition highlighted his failure to tell the Accountant-General of the breach of Financial Instructions.

Mr Telemaque was criticised for the same omissions in a consultancy contract with Ambling and in connection with the TCD vehicle testing and emissions project, awarded in 2001, where the construction costs almost tripled from $5.3 million to $15.2 million and is anticipated to overrun its original estimated running costs by $7 million over the ten years of the deal.

He was also found to have authorised, as Cabinet Secretary, an advance payment of $8.9 million to Correia Construction/NB Entrech for the construction of Heritage Wharf, which came in at $60 million — $21 million more than the original $39 million estimate.

The shift of the project to tourism and transport, from works and engineering, was said by the Commission to be “unclear, unsatisfactory, and inappropriately documented”.

The Commission also found that the final terms of the contract were not submitted to Cabinet by then premier Ewart Brown, “although Cabinet did apparently approve selection of the vendor”.

But commissioners pointed out that the contract did not allow the right to audit and did not require a performance bond, while selecting a contractor without a bid price blocked competition.

Mr Telemaque was further blamed for failing to notify the Accountant-General of a breach of Financial Instructions.

Ms Whitter was criticised on a number of fronts relating to contracts with GlobalHue, Ambling, the Port Royal Golf Course redevelopment and Heritage Wharf.

Kenneth Dill was criticised for failing to follow Financial Instructions on a contract for work on the Department of Human Resources building and for not gaining Cabinet approval.

Civil servant Anthony Manders was also criticised for failing to make clear that a requested waiver of the rules for the public-private partnership deal to build a new airport would extend to the whole project, including the selection of developer Aecon as contractor.

The Commission’s report said: “Many of the cases the Commission has examined appear rooted in difficulties with navigating the relationship between ministers and senior civil servants, particularly permanent secretaries.

“These senior civil servants bear direct responsibility for making sure that rules are followed, while at the same time ensuring that ministerial mandates are carried out.”

The report added: “We recognise that this role can at times be difficult; senior civil servants should be neither needlessly obstructionist nor compliant to the point of complicity.”

On occasion The Royal Gazette may decide to not allow comments on a story that we deem might inflame sensitivities. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.