Editorial | Dr Clarke’s ministerial bull?

Nigel Clarke, the finance minister, has offered a defence of the central bank's secret contract for the production of new Jamaican currency notes that if it were a Papal Bull, would be tantamount to the Pope declaring belief in the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection to be optional. Dr Clarke should recant lest his action leads to a schism in the public sector, in which a minority of adherents hold to transparency as an unbreakable precept of the faith, while for others, it is an idea to be employed on the basis of whim.

To recap this matter, during his Budget presentation in March, Dr Clarke disclosed that the Bank of Jamaica (BOJ) would issue a $2,000 currency note and that other bills were being redesigned. This became the source of a contretemps. Quarrels centred especially on the plans for the $2,000 note. The existing $1,000 note currently features Michael Manley, who led the People's National Party (PNP) from 1969 to 1992 and who, as prime minister in the 1970s, staked out a left-of-centre position and became a major voice on the world stage for Third World causes and reform of the global economy.

Mr Manley will now be featured on the $2,000 note alongside Edward Seaga, a former Jamaica Labour Party leader and Mr Manley's bitter rival of the 1970s and prime minister of the 1980s. Mr Manley held a radically different vision of Jamaica and its place in the world. Where Mr Manley's government had close relations with Cuba and espoused non-alignment, Mr Seaga was unabashedly with the West and a strong regional ally of Ronald Reagan. Both men, now dead, were at the helm of their parties during Jamaica's bitter election of 1980 when the country was close to a civil war.

SHOULD NOT BE PAIRED

PNP adherents argue that Mr Manley and Mr Seaga should not be paired on a currency note. They claim that the move is an attempt at the diminution of Mr Manley and the elevation of Mr Seaga. Dr Clarke insisted that it was a symbol of maturity and of healing, which happens to coincide with the technical upgrading of Jamaica's banknotes.

This newspaper has no wish, at this time, to litigate that debate. Our concern is how much taxpayers ought to know about the spending of their money, even if the spending is by an independent central bank.

In the wake of the Budget Debate, The Gleaner asked the central bank, by way of an access to information request, about the cost of the currency upgrades. We were denied the information.

“The contract relating to the cost of upgrading the banknotes is exempt from disclosure under the Access to Information Act,” the BOJ's Deputy General Counsel, Alvana Johnson, told The Gleaner. It was, however, said that the job of printing the banknotes was subject to competitive bidding.

Later, the central bank doubled down on this position but went further. It said in a public statement: “We are not able to disclose such information as the terms and conditions of the contract with De La Rue, which include the cost, are subject to a strict confidentiality agreement. In fact, personnel engaged in the procurement process were required to sign non-disclosure agreements prohibiting them from disclosing the settled payment term.”

It is this position that Dr Clarke offered a contorted defence of in an opinion article in this newspaper on Sunday in which he conceded that accountability by public officials for public funds “is a fundamental principle”, but derogation from which, in this case, was OK.

“As we know ... principles are not absolute and apply provided that they do not violate other important principles,” he wrote.

The minister then went on to explain how the new banknotes, with robust security features on better-quality stock, would not only be harder to counterfeit, but would last longer and save taxpayers money.

The upgraded designs would widen the number of companies that could now print Jamaica's currency although that appeared not to have affected the award of the contract to De La Rue, the long-time printer of the island's banknotes.

CONFLATED HIS DISSERTATION

The minister seems to have conflated his dissertation on the technical quality and cost-effectiveness of the upgrades with a reasoned explanation of why the BOJ entered into a contract with De La Rue, with clauses that would cause “public disclosure of this is specific information” to be “an actionable breach of confidence”. It would be useful if it were disclosed whether the contract – and the details thereof – was reported to the Integrity Commission and is subject to that agency's oversight and review.

The issue here is not about questioning the integrity of officials of the central bank. The larger matter is of public-sector transparency and public trust, of which Dr Clarke was emerging, it appeared, as a leading defender of the faith. However, in this case, in the absence of a rational explanation for the central bank's action, there seems to be a disparity in the application of the rules for Medes and Persians. Or of some institutions being more equal than others.

That is dangerous. Other public-sector agencies, having noted the BOJ's example, may feel themselves insulated if they insert clauses in contracts that make them immune from public scrutiny. In this regard, we commend to Dr Clarke the recently released biennial survey on attitudes to democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean by Vanderbilt University's LAPOP research laboratory. In Jamaica, support for democracy is low. Citizens' trust in public officials and institutions is low in part because of issues like this one. Absence of trust and deep suspicion corrode everything.