EDITORIAL - Buck stops with UDC board

The latest piece of ineptitude coming out of the government-run Urban Development Corporation (UDC) has the organisation fending off speculation about its leadership. And this far exceeds snafus such as missing carpet and chairs.

The Corporation has come under scrutiny for the substantially discounted sale of Little Bloody Bay, and the perceived underpricing of its 59.81 per cent stake of Pegasus shares has drawn flak in light of a significantly better payday for minority interests.

Now we are told that the UDC has sold property in downtown Kingston to an unsolicited bidder, snubbing the tenant of 30 years, who had apparently expressed an interest in the property and was told it was not for sale.

It took complaints to Contractor General Greg Christie and his subsequent investigation and recommendation for the immediate termination of the arrangement with the potential purchaser to address what, on the face of it, looks like a glaring breach of privatisation rules.

No one can sensibly oppose development, and downtown Kingston urgently needs investment if the capital is to be prevented from sliding into further decay. We support the board idea of putting government assets into private hands where they can generate tax revenue and provide employment. For example, the wharves and airports are likely to serve the public better and be more efficient if they are in private hands.

And while we do not think that the divestment process ought to be tangled in red tape, we certainly frown on any attempt to shortcut the legislative framework and guidelines that should underpin this process.

It is a fact that even though some big-ticket items like Air Jamaica, the Sugar Company of Jamaica, and Clarendon Alumina Production have been offloaded, Government still has other valuable assets that could raise vital revenue for the administration at a time when funds are sorely needed to plug the Budget deficit.

Hold to standards

However, the thirst for economic advancement cannot be allowed to take precedence over the requirement to incorporate standard good practice for the disposal of assets, in keeping with the clearly enunciated principles of the Government of Jamaica's Privatisation Policy and Procedures.

Among the concerns on the public's mind are the long-term implications of a cancellation of a sale such as this. First, it might undermine confidence in the UDC as a reputable organisation, so that potential investors may shun future sales or even collaboration with Government. Also, the cancellation of sale will likely have legal repercussions, as hinted by the principal of Bashco Trading Company, Mr Gassan Azan. This may turn out to be an expensive mistake.

Word out of UDC board discussions is that the tenure of head of the Corporation, Ms Joy Douglas, may be in jeopardy. But the board must not deceive itself into believing that booting Ms Douglas and patting itself on the back would be the conclusion of the matter. There would remain a number of glaring unanswered questions.

Most strikingly, where was the board when these decisions were taken? Was Ms Douglas acting unilaterally? Did the board simply say to Ms Douglas, "Sell, sell, sell?" And what role did the technocrats at the UDC play in this matter? Until these questions are convincingly answered, we suggest that the board needs to examine its own role and let the people of Jamaica judge whether it has been a good steward.