Editorial | Belnavis affair grows murkier

Rovel Morris cannot but be literate and, therefore, competent at extracting information from verbal and written communication. If anyone were to conclude to the contrary, the error would be their own. Or Mr Morris, for whatever reason, was deliberately feigning ignorance.

After all, Mr Morris is the CEO of the St Ann Municipal Corporation, a job that makes him, under the Local Governance Act, “responsible …. for the proper planning, execution, conduct and administration of the affairs” of the municipal council. More critically, he is the corporation’s chief accounting officer, accountable for how the local government’s resources are managed. An ignorant Mr Morris would not have qualified for the post.

In this regard, we hardly expect that Mr Morris would need anyone’s help in interpreting what is said in any document reviewing his performance on the job, and the implications thereof.

This includes specifically the Integrity Commission’s (IC) report, issued in September, about the 2019 installation by the St Ann Municipal Corporation of an electric charging port for use by the corporation’s former chairman, Michael Belnavis, to power up his hybrid vehicle. And if legal questions arose, Mr Morris’ call for advice would be to the municipality’s legal adviser, or the office of the attorney. And if he felt it necessary, he might consult his personal attorneys. The national security minister does not easily fit into the picture.

Which, to say the least, makes Horace Chang’s out-of-the-blue, after-the-fact intervention in the charging port affair, purporting to vindicate Mr Belnavis, quite odd and in need of further and better particulars. It is without context.

RESIGNATION AND REIMBURSEMENT

It is recalled that at the height of the controversy, Mr Belnavis, a governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) politician, resigned as chairman of the St Ann local government council and as mayor of St Ann’s Bay. He also reimbursed the corporation the more than $78,000 it paid to install the charging port, which was installed on the recommendation of Mr Belnavis. The expenditure was signed off on by Mr Morris in his role as the corporation’s top civil servant and accounting officer.

However, in an October 4 letter to Mr Morris, which was disclosed at last week’s monthly meeting of the municipal corporation, Dr Chang, the security minister, noted that Mr Belnavis resigned in 2020 as the council’s chairman “on his own free will” and that “he still remains a local government councillor”. We were not aware that someone might have imputed otherwise.

Dr Chang added: “Kindly note that there was an inquiry regarding the charging port at the municipal corporation which was concluded and cleared Councillor Belnavis of any breaches. Please extend the usual courtesies to Councillor Belnavis.”

The implication, it seems, is that courtesies were withdrawn and that Dr Chang is now seeking to have them reinstated. If that indeed happened, it was in secret. But more to the point, in what capacity would Dr Chang, who is also the general secretary of the JLP, make that appeal? And why him, rather than the minister with responsibility for local government, Desmond McKenzie?

More pertinent, perhaps, are the findings of the Integrity Commission in the charging port/Belnavis affair. While the IC did not accuse Mr Belnavis of any illegality or recommended specific sanctions against him, it would be a stretch, in our view, to claim that he was vindicated and accused of no “breaches”, even if the matters raised were ethical.

Indeed, it was Mr Morris who bore the brunt of the commission’s censure. The report questioned his judgement in approving the expenditure on the charging port and suggested that he acted ultra vires of the law governing the behaviour of accounting officers.

‘SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE’

“ There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Mr Rovel Morris, chief executive officer, St Ann Municipal Corporation, and the accounting officer for the corporation, by his authorisation of the installation and subsequent payment for the referenced facility, for the personal use of Mr Michael Belnavis, was in breach of Section 16 of the Financial Administration and Audit Act and Section 17 of the Public Bodies Management and Accountability Act,” the report said. The document was forwarded to various government bodies for the action.

When Mr Morris publicly claimed to have been vindicated at a hearing by the Local Government Services Commission, the IC publicly pushed back, disclosing that he had in fact been reprimanded and advised to, in the future “be prudent and (to) practise proper administration as the chief executive officer and accountable officer of the corporation”.

With respect to the council chairman, the Integrity Commission found that the charging port was “installed for the personal use of Mr Belnavis”. The installation cost apart, there was no indication of, or how the corporation would be reimbursed for the electricity consumed. Moreover, the IC held that Mr Belnavis’ memo to Mr Morris requesting the charging port, and claiming that it would also be used by a clamping vehicle for the town of Ocho Rios, was “misleading”.

“ The … conclusion is premised upon the observation that, as at the date on which the memorandum was issued, consideration for the said clamping vehicle had not yet been made by the corporation,” the report said.

Of even greater import is the final paragraph of the report. It reads: “ The DI (director of investigations) recommends that political representatives and other holders of public office desist from making requests of accounting and/or accountable officers, which require them to deploy public resources for their personal use. The DI’s recommendation in this regard is premised upon former Mayor Mr Michael Belnavis’ request by way of memorandum to Mr Rovel Morris, chief executive officer, St Ann Municipal Corporation, for the installation of a charging facility for his personal use.”

Maybe we have missed something that Dr Chang might wish to explain. That is assuming that the letter that was tabled at the municipal council’s meeting was legitimate.