Ani­ka Gumbs-San­di­ford

The month­ly $65,000 con­sul­tan­cy fees of Prof An­tho­ny Joseph are be­ing paid un­der the guise of a Pub­lic Sec­tor In­vest­ment Pro­gramme (PSIP) project. In­ves­ti­ga­tions re­vealed that Joseph, whose job spec is yet to be de­fined at the Oc­cu­pa­tion­al Safe­ty and Health Agency (Os­ha), is be­ing paid un­der the PSIP project en­ti­tled-re­cruit­ment.

Un­der the above project the Agency is ex­pect­ed to hire per­sons to fill va­can­cies on the ap­proved or­gan­i­sa­tion­al chart. Ad­ver­tis­ing costs and all oth­er ser­vices re­quired to fill the va­can­cies are list­ed un­der the project. For the fis­cal pe­ri­od Oc­to­ber 2011 to 2012 the Agency was al­lo­cat­ed $4 mil­lion for PSIP projects.

Sun­day Guardian learnt that to date ap­prox­i­mate­ly $2 mil­lion was re­leased by the Min­istry of Fi­nance for such projects. How­ev­er, Sun­day Guardian has learnt that Joseph, the Agency's ad­min­is­tra­tive con­sul­tant (now chief ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor) is al­so be­ing paid from the project fund.

Nei­ther the ti­tle of ad­min­is­tra­tive con­sul­tant nor chief ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor ex­ists on the or­gan­i­sa­tion­al chart of Os­ha. While doc­u­ments re­vealed that sev­er­al of the projects to be un­der­tak­en un­der the fis­cal year have not yet com­menced, the con­sul­tan­cy fees paid to Joseph un­der PSIP are now over­stat­ed by $360,000.

This is be­cause the PSIP re­cruit­ment project did not cater for the hefty con­sul­tan­cy fees be­ing paid to Joseph. Ap­proval has on­ly been grant­ed for the po­si­tion of ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor at Os­ha. The salary and al­lowances ap­proved by the Salaries Re­view Com­mis­sion (SRC) for the po­si­tion is $45,000. Ac­cord­ing to the Os­ha Act the po­si­tion of ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor is to be de­cid­ed by the SRC.

Who au­tho­rised for Joseph to be paid a month­ly fee of $65,000 from PSIP, re­mains a mys­tery. The Agency's line min­is­ter Er­rol Mc Leod has tak­en a hands-off ap­proach on the is­sue re­fus­ing to shed light on the con­tro­ver­sial mat­ter. Clause (2) of the Min­istry of Labour Ten­der Rules clear­ly states: "...The Per­ma­nent Sec­re­tary's lim­it for con­sul­tan­cy con­tracts is lim­it­ed to ser­vices val­ued at $200,000."

For the pe­ri­od of 12 months, Joseph is ex­pect­ed to re­ceive the sum of $780,000. The fees be­ing paid are above the lim­it of the per­ma­nent sec­re­tary. Mean­while, al­though Os­ha is not yet de­clared a statu­to­ry body in ac­cor­dance with the Statu­to­ry Au­thor­i­ties Act of 1996 funds used in its op­er­a­tions are pub­lic funds and there­fore the state has con­trol­ling in­ter­est.

Ac­cord­ing to the In­tegri­ty in Pub­lic Life Act sec­tion (V) 31:3 states: "No per­son to whom this part ap­plies shall be a par­ty to or shall un­der­take any project or ac­tiv­i­ty in­volv­ing the use of pub­lic funds in dis­re­gard of the fi­nan­cial or­ders or oth­er reg­u­la­tions ap­plic­a­ble to such funds." What this means is that while Joseph is re­ceiv­ing a month­ly fee of $65,000, both the board of Os­ha and the min­istry are in breach of the Cen­tral Ten­ders Board Act, the Ex­che­quer and Au­dit Act, and the min­istry's ten­der rules.