Editorial | Why didn’t Mr Lebert know?

Errol Lebert seems an incurious man without a clear fix on his responsibilities as chief executive officer (CEO) of the St Elizabeth Municipal Corporation (SEMC), the parish's local government. Or, that was the case in 2018 when he approved more than $700,000 worth of contracts to a company owned by the son of the member of parliament (MP) for North West St Elizabeth, J.C. Hutchinson.

Mr Lebert apparently did not know, and was not told, of the relationship between the prominent Hutchinsons, the father, J.C. and son, Jason, who is the principal of Prostar Electrical and Construction.

“At no time prior to or during the engagement of Prostar Electrical and Construction was the corporation informed of any conflict of interest between MP Hutchinson and Prostar Electrical and Construction,” Mr Lebert told The Gleaner in a written response to the Integrity Commission's singeing criticism of the MP for causing Prostar to be recommended for the contracts.

WORRYING QUESTIONS

We have no cause to doubt Mr Lebert. Indeed, we believe him. But the matter raises worrying questions of how the SEMC conducts its affairs, and whether it and other municipal corporations are being properly served by their executive staff. It suggests, too, that the local government ministry should undertake a review of the competence of these officials, as well as train them on their obligations under the Local Governance Act and any other pertinent law.

Each financial year, Mr Hutchinson, like all parliamentarians, is allocated J$20 million through the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) for spending on projects he identifies for his constituency. The regulations stipulate that these decisions are the MPs' responsibility, although Mr Hutchinson suggested that he sometimes delegated that authority to an assistant who coordinates his CDF programme.

Indeed, it is that assistant who wrote to the local government authority recommending Jason Hutchinson's company for the contracts financed from his father's CDF allocation, although, at least once, MP Hutchinson signed the invoice for work done by Prostar. The Integrity Commissions accused J.C. Hutchinson, now a minister in the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), of conflict of interest over the Prostar issue and for actions relating to the appointment of his life partner and son's mother to several school boards in his constituency.

The Integrity Commission made no specific finding on a significant observation about the conduct of the SEMC in the Prostar affair, although it interviewed officials of the corporation, including Mr Lebert, who explained that project recommendations, such as the ones involving the Hutchinsons, are “reviewed by him and instructions ... (and) directed to the corporation's superintendent/chief engineering officer for his action and/or attention”. Other officers then become involved in their execution.

FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY

This is where questions of Mr Lebert's curiosity and fiduciary responsibility arise.

The Hutchinsons are a prominent family in St Elizabeth. It is no secret that Jason Hutchinson is the principal of, and runs an electrical and construction company – although Mr Lebert may not have personally had that knowledge. Nonetheless, it is not inappropriate to ask whether, in reviewing the recommendation for Prostar to get the contracts, he appeared not to be curious about the bona fides of the company, including who were its principals and managers. Or whether it was competent to accomplish the tasks for which it was recommended. It is surprising that the IC did not robustly interrogate this element of the matter.

Mr Lebert need not have determined these things himself. However, if he was ignorant of them, he had an obligation to have it done. Indeed, given the many scandals in recent years involving the awarding of contracts and nepotism among politicians at municipal corporations, their non-political executive would be expected to be alert to avoid such accusations.

This is no mere post-facto assault against Mr Lebert. As the CEO, under the law, is the chief accounting officer of the local authority, his responsibilities include “the proper plumbing, executive, conduct and administration of the affairs of the council”. That does not mean acting like an automaton in executing requests from politicians, especially when these involve the spending of taxpayers' money.

It is not enough to declare ignorance of information which officials like Mr Lebert ought, reasonably, to have been aware of and which he should have made it his business to know.