Dear Editor,
In SN of August 29, it was reported as follows: “Following a special investigation, Auditor General Deodat Sharma earlier this year discovered that the Rose Hall Estate overpaid close to $5m to two contractors for mechanical tillage works in 2021 after the estate deviated from the stipulated rate of $7500 per hour to $8500 per hour – during the period January 1 to November 23, 2021. Further, based on the discovery the Auditor General recommended ‘appropriate disciplinary action’ against the Estate Manager, Agriculture Manager, Engineer Field Operations, and ‘any other culpable officer/s who aided in the decision for deviation of rates per contracts.” Presumably ‘other officer/s’ would include the corporation’s accounting department, as the Auditor General’s recommendations noted that all contracts awarded must be ‘properly monitored to ensure adherence to required procedures’.
Further the Audit Office stated “…. Payments were verified by the superintendent of works, certified by the assistant manager and approved by the departmental head, finance manager and the estate manager”. There is no mention of a Director of Agriculture, a traditional specialist competence in the history of the industry. So far, the outcome would appear to be only the resignation of the Estate Manager. Interestingly however in a letter to SN of August 31 the alleged chief miscreant has provided an instructive version of the change (deviation) in the rate system and the rationale therefor, which he insists was provided for in the related contracts. What cannot be overlooked is that as Estate Manager (which he still claims to be) he considers that this deviation of payment (from ‘piece-rated to time-rated’) ‘was necessary due to the inadequate and poor tillage machines, unsuitable type of tractors and implements, poor conditions and inexperienced operators (highlighted in the Audit Report)’.
The above scenario offers a frightening prospect that must be brought to the urgent attention of GuySuCo’s Board – moreso against the immediate intention to invest in similar contracted agricultural operations – at the same Rose Hall Estate, as well as Albion/PM, Blairmont and Uitvlugt Estates. The Board must address the question of availability of suitably experienced and authoritative competencies to provide the detailed supervision and coordination that the proposed cane farming projects would require. If pursued, logic suggests that a special and appropriately staffed ‘Cane Farming Development Department’ will have to be established. Cane quality is the essence of optimal productivity. The Corporation certainly has its work cut out, moreso in the absence of appropriately experienced industry-level decision-makers. In the circumstances it might not be inopportune for the latter to involve the current experienced Cane Farming Official in a most comprehensive review of the efficacy of their proposed agricultural project challenge.
Sincerely,
E.B. John
Retired GuySuCo ‘Executive
Director’
