Financial Secretary, Colin Bullock, has responded to claims by Contractor General, Greg Christie, that the Ministry of Finance and Planning had refused to comply with requests for information on whether Air Jamaica was in breach of Government's procurement guidelines and its status as a public body.
In a Letter to the Editor, denying aspects of the charge, Mr. Bullock said the documents, which outlined the ministry's tardiness in complying with requests from the Office of the Contractor General, had omitted the response of the Ministry of Finance.
According to Mr. Bullock this "unfortunate omission" had created a public perception that "there is ongoing criminal non-compliance with his office".
The Financial Secretary stated that the ministry takes no issue with the position that there should have been a more prompt feedback.
He explained that the initial letter enquiring if Air Jamaica was now a public body, and if it was compliant with public procurement guidelines, was dated April 18, 2006. He said a response was sent to the Contractor General on May 16, following his second letter dated May 9.
"The resurrection of this issue four months after the formal withdrawal of the Contractor General's third letter is a breach of faith with extremely pejorative implications. Was this really the motivation here?" Mr. Bullock questioned.
not a party to discussions
"Without sight of either the third or fourth letters, I travelled on official business on May 19. I returned on May 26, one day after the expiry of the Contractor General's ultimatum. On my return to office, I was advised of communication between the Cabinet Secretary and the Contractor General. I was not a party to these discussions and the correspondence was not copied to me," he further explained.
Cabinet Secretary, Dr. Carlton Davis' request for a meeting with the Contractor General "to discuss the tone of my (Mr. Christie's) communications to senior public service officials" ignited a war of words between the two parties.
Mr. Christie told the Cabinet Secretary that he was uncomfortable about "the propriety and correctness of my meeting with you to ostensibly discuss the manner in which I should discharge (or should have discharged) my obligatory functions under the Contractor General Act".
Responding, Dr. Davis acknowledged the roles and responsibilities of the Contractor General stating that he would be the last to want to derogate from them. However in a parting shot, Dr. Davis said: "My concern is that one can be much more effective without resorting to the use of a 'blunt instrument'."