Amid allegations of wrongdoing unearthed in audits conducted by State-owned Petrotrin in the award of three corporate scholarships valued at approximately $1million, former vice president of human resource and corporate services (VPHRCS) and chairman of the Scholarship Review Committee (SRC) Preston George insists he has done nothing improper. "I was not the head of the organisation (Petrotrin). I had a functional reporting line headed by the executive chairman (EC). So I had an instruction to prepare a proposal which my superior signed off as approved and which I then went on to ensure that all the other administrative things were put in place to ensure the company's money was properly accounted for."
"As former VPHRCS I did my job with all honesty, integrity and the highest tenets of professionalism and if at any point in time I felt anything underhand was happening, I was going to record my position on it," George said in an interview with Sunday Guardian. He added: "Nobody, not even the union, could say Preston George did this for any personal benefit." George, Petrotrin's president Kenneth Allum and former Executive Chairman Malcolm Jones were among three of the company's executives named in the investigative reports undertaken late last year. Irregularities were cited in the award of scholarships to a female employee as well as the daughters of both a former Petrotrin general manager and manager respectively-the latter of whom, subsequently declined the $425,250 offer in 2009.
The audits stated, too, that Allum, Jones and George "did not comply with Petrotrin's Corporate Scholarship Award Programme (CSAP), code of ethics and conduct and corporate fraud policies and procedures" in the award of these scholarships. The reports also showed that there were several breaches of Petrotrin's CSAP, namely the lax adherence to procedural guidelines and the granting of awards which were not among "core" academic disciplines and therefore not able to provide the 'best fit' with the organisation's business needs." The findings of one report revealed that one awardee accepted a partial scholarship valued $386,119.80 in 2008, to pursue Naturopathic Medicine in Canada which the "T&T Medical Board had not yet approved" and was "therefore of no benefit to Petrotrin".
The other scholarship recipient (employee) was awarded the sum of $162,907 in 2009 to complete a Bachelor's in Advertising and Public Relations in Florida (US) although scholarship offers for "only core disciplines" were advertised by the company that year. These core areas were: oil and gas engineering, general engineering disciplines, geo sciences and health, safety and the environment. Additionally, as indicated in the audit, while pre-screening, selection interviews and psychometric testing were requisites to the scholarship's selection process, "all three were totally bypassed" in the award of scholarships to both the employee and the former general manager's daughter. In her response, Petrotrin's corporate communications manager Gillian Friday reiterated that it was not company policy to comment publicly on such issues.
No basis for consideration
Despite not meeting the criteria for selection as evidenced via letter dated June 9, 2009-signed by George in his capacity as chairman of the SRC-and an internal memorandum dated August 12, 2009 in which the then secretary of the SRC Dawn Bassant cited there was "no basis for consideration for an award", the company employee was subsequently awarded a partial scholarship two months later by letter sent to her by Allum on August 19. According to the audit's report, Bassant's memorandum came nine days after Allum wrote to George asking: "Can we support this recommendation (request for award of scholarship to employee) with an appropriate basis?"
Bassant stated (in the internal memo) that while the employee "may be recommended for special consideration and be given a grant, outside of the CSAP", a "more comprehensive" proposal was needed and such information (as received for the employee) did "not currently provide data from which to derive a justifiable cause". Her (Bassant) memorandum also alluded to another employee whose scholarship application to pursue a "degree in Events Management" was denied because it was also considered to be a "non-core" discipline. Reports showed that subsequent to this memorandum, George forwarded a memorandum on August 17, 2009 (in which he outlined the employee's suitability for qualification) for a "one time scholarship grant" to said employee. This was later approved by Allum on August 19, 2009. When questioned on the contents of her memorandum, Bassant said she was not in a position to "validate, verify or give any information" on the matter.
Mother: Everything was done legally
The mother of the employee, who spoke on behalf of her daughter, told Sunday Guardian she was "not aware" of the audit and contends that "everything was done legally". She added: "My daughter met with whoever she had to meet, whether it was Mr Allum, Mr George or whoever. She went for all her interviews and carried all her documentation. "I suggest you check with Petrotrin. That has nothing to do with us... we followed all instructions and she was awarded that (scholarship) from Petrotrin." George-in a written response (dated October 14 2010) to a question posed by Petrotrin's internal audit manager, Rabindranath Lackhan, to why certain individuals (namely the employee and the other female awardee) were "granted partial scholarships outside the workings of the CSAP's recommendations", sought clarification on the issue. He stated: "The role of the EC is clearly outlined" and includes the "responsibility for approval of the recommended annual scholarship offering as well as the final recommended listing of scholarship awardees". George added: "The office of the EC is given some discretionary prerogative, budget permitting" which had been the practice with regard to the CSAP's policy procedure guidelines since it became operational in 2008.
He wrote: "When enquiries were forwarded from the office of the EC/president requesting the preparation of appropriate justification for financial assistance, it was evident that such was being done on the understanding that funds were available, as well as with the clear appreciation that....such discretion resided in the office of the EC/president." The father of the other female awardee said neither he nor his daughter had any knowledge of this audit and the fact that one exists was "rather depressing".
"It was never brought to my attention. If I knew anything was untoward I would not have allowed her to accept anything," he said. The former general manager added that while naturopathic medicine was "a relatively new field", he genuinely expected that by "the time she (the daughter) graduated, she would have been able to practise in Trinidad". When contacted by Sunday Guardian for comment on the article, Lackhan shied away from giving a response, as did Allum, who said: "I don't comment on internal issues relating to Petrotrin."
George: I was not allowed to examine findings of audit
Though mentioned in all three audits, George revealed he was never given the opportunity to examine the findings of any audit, saying he found out only after reading an exclusive Sunday Guardian report three weeks ago in which his name came up in a Petrotrin investigation into a scholarship awarded to the daughter of one of the company's former managers. He said he could not say whether the audits were properly conducted since he was not privy to their "remit and terms of reference". On April 8, 2011, George said he was summoned to a meeting with Petrotrin's Chairman Lindsay Gillette and a director where he was told of the board's investigations with regard to the three scholarship awards. In response to the reports' findings, George said he was asked certain questions and provided a comprehensive report with supporting documents to the board.
He said he was told that "the company had lost confidence" in him and the board indicated "they were not satisfied" and advanced that as the reason why he was "no longer with the organisation." "Nobody called me subsequently and told me what I said was contrary to what (information) the board had," he said. George added: "A perusal of company records will not support what they (the board) were saying, George said when he received notes from the executive chairman or the President, he would "normally send them to the head of learning and development to prepare a proposal". "I would merely sign it, I would not prepare the document," he said. Questions surrounding the audits and particulars of this alleged board meeting (with George), were forwarded (via e-mail) to Gillette more than two weeks ago.
This correspondence followed a telephone call made to him in which he stated that such requests for information be made in writing and sent to him.
They remained unanswered up to late yesterday.
George departs
George, who admitted to being "paid three months (salary) in lieu of notice", said: "If it is (that) one is being sent home for doing one's job, then so be it." Asked if his dismissal on April 8 was politically motivated, George responded: "I am not going there." In defending himself, George said based on the construct of the SRC policy, he wore two hats, since "the VPHRCS sits as chairman." He said: "Any decisions coming out from the SRC, as chairman, I would have to sign off on it but I signed off on it as SRC chairman. "The VPHRCS has no awarding authority. The proposals I prepared were properly documented....I did not go and self initiate any of this," George added.
Jones: Everything in accordance with policy
In response to the audits (particularly surrounding investigations into the scholarship awarded to the daughter of one former general manager), Petrotrin's former EC, Malcolm Jones stated: "First to begin, I do not understand why these audits are reaching the press. They were audits that were done internally for the purpose of the company's management and so on. "That policy (CSAP) was developed by my board and if you look at it very carefully, I would think that everything that happened, happened in accordance with the policy. "So the auditor, I don't know what job he did or what job he didn't do, but I think if he did a very good job, he would've really understood the policy."