TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Published: Thu, 2011-10-20 22:10
Gail Alexander
Tweet
Brigadier Peter Joseph
Brigadier Peter Joseph has said that his daughter Adanna had applied on her own for scholarship assistance from the previous PNM government, but was unsuccessful. But the Government yesterday noted that Adanna Joseph had written directly to former prime minister Patrick Manning in 2004, seeking scholarship assistance and had listed “Brigadier Peter Joseph” as her father on her scholarship application form. Joseph, the former head of the Special Anti-Crime Unit (Sautt) yesterday issued a statement on the issue after Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar spoke about his daughter’s scholarship application during Monday’s 2012 budget debate.
Speaking about the $45 million scholarship programme under the then PNM administration, Persad-Bissessar had cited a July 2011 report done by the Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC) which found substantial breaches of the EOC act in the scholarship programme. Persad-Bissessar had read out part of an application from Brigadier Joseph’s daughter, Adanna, who she said received $25,600 in 2004 to pursue a BA at Mount Saint Vincent University. Persad-Bissessar claimed an additional note was penned by Manning saying: “Does not qualify under needy. However, some assistance is recommended.”
The Prime Minister had displayed another scholarship application copy to then minister Joan Yuille-Williams. She claimed Manning had written at the top of that application: “Please handle this quietly.” Persad-Bissessar said a forensic audit would be carried out into the award of scholarships under the former government and that the EOC report would be sent to the Integrity Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration and determination. Quoting the EOC report, Persad-Bissessar said scholarships were not awarded on a needs basis but on the basis of recommendations from ministers, including Manning. She had also echoed an earlier statement by Manning that “jail was not nice....”
Yesterday, Adanna Joseph’s father Brigadier Joseph of the now defunct Sautt unit—which the PP Government terminated—however, said: “During the budget 2012 debate in Parliament on Monday, the Hon Prime Minister made a statement that my daughter Adanna Joseph received a scholarship valued $25,600 from the Ministry of Culture and Community Development. “I wish to state that my daughter did not receive an education grant from the Government through the Ministry of Culture and Community Development,” he said. “I state categorically that my daughter Adanna Joseph has never received an award of any kind for any purpose from the Government. “In 2004, Adanna Joseph on her own accord applied for a scholarship and was not successful...She was told that she did not qualify based on the criteria for an education grant.”
However, Minister Devant Maharaj who had headed investigations into the PNM government’s scholarship programme while he was head of Gopio in 2008-2009, insisted Joseph’s application brought into question whether there were influential links between the former PNM hierarchy and Sautt. Maharaj said the EOC report’s Item 46 noted there were instances where applicants were awarded grants, not based on financial need but on recommendations from then government ministers, and even Manning. The EOC report stated that some names were not provided to the commission by the ministry, but instead were found by EOC investigators upon their visit to the ministry.
As an example, the EOC report noted the issue concerning Adanna Joseph, stating: “In 2004, Adanna Joseph received $25,600 to pursue a BA in Public Relations Cooperative Education Route Programme at Mount Saint Vincent University. She is the daughter of Brigadier Peter Joseph. A note attached to the Interview sheet of the ministry stated the following, ‘Does not qualify under needy. However, some assistance is recommended.’” Additionally, attached to this application form was a note from the then prime minister Patrick Manning on the Prime Minister’s official stationary with the words “Hon Joan Yuille- Williams. Please assist.”
The note also included what purported to be Manning’s signature and the date 04.10.24. One of Adanna Joseph’s documents on the issue also showed that Joseph wrote directly to Manning in an October 12, 2004, letter received by the Prime Minister’s office on October 26, 2004. In this, Joseph requested assistance to pay for a four-year course at a Canadian university at (CAN)$20,020 per year to obtain a degree. Another application document from the ministry for 2004 bursaries shows that under the column for “Social History” Joseph listed “Brigadier Peter Joseph” (sic) as her father plus other family details. Another of Joseph’s documents shows she was recommended by one S Belgrave. In the column for remarks was the sentence “Some assistance recommended” written by an unknown author.
Maharaj added: “This again raises the long-held suspicion that Sautt was a political tool of the past PNM administration since the EOC report indicates it seemed one could have received scholarships due to PNM connections.” Manning, declining comment on the issue yesterday, said: “Speak to my lawyers.” However, a PNM spokesman said it was normal for MPs to forward requests for assistance which they received from people who were not their constituents to the relevant line minister.
Maharaj, though, yesterday signalled that the Government was moving swiftly to take action on the scholarship issue since certain regulations were breached. Maharaj wrote the Integrity Commission on Tuesday regarding the issue. He forwarded a copy of the EOC’s report and breaches cited. He had written the Integrity Commission in December 2009, complaining about the scholarship awards.
By Anna Ramdass anna.ramdass@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: Oct 20, 2011 at 10:54 PM ECT
Story Updated: Oct 20, 2011 at 10:54 PM ECT
The Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC) has raised concerns over the sanitisation of records and some $15 million that was not accounted for in the PNM's secret scholarship fund.
The EOC compiled the report after activist Devant Maharaj, now Transport Minister, complained that there was racial discrimination in the award of the scholarships under the PNM.
In the report, the Commission headed by Prof John Le Guerre, explained the commissioners' difficulty in gathering information with respect to how the scholarships were disbursed as there were no records of meetings or even completed application forms.
The report also stated that there was a disparity in the figures provided and millions were missing.
"Several anomalies were seen to exist in the evidence submitted by the Ministry (Community Development). The main discrepancy being the huge disparity between figures as submitted by the complainant (Maharaj) which was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and those which were submitted by the Ministry to the Commission upon request," stated the report.
"The total funding paid out by the Ministry for the period 2003 to 2007 on the complainant's list is $50,863,950.38 while the list of awardees received by the Commission obtained funding amounting to $34,896,201.51. In this regard there seems to have been a sanitisation of over $15 million in the list provided by the Ministry to the Commission," the report added.
The EOC report also revealed that a scholarship was awarded to an 11-year-old but there was no information as to why or who made the recommendation.
According to the report, the boy received £5,000 for living expenses to be incurred while attending the Sylvia Young Theatre School in London.
The Commission did not find any answers as well as to why a foreign national was awarded a scholarship when the programme was geared for only citizens of Trinidad and Tobago.
The report stated that the Grenadian was awarded financial assistance covering the cost of tuition and living expenses to the total of $28,000.
"(Name called) is not a national of Trinidad and Tobago but is in fact of Grenadian nationality. Attached to his application form was a note purporting to be from the then prime minister Patrick Manning on the Prime Minister's official stationary with the words "Hon Joan Yuille-Williams. Please handle this quietly," stated the report.
The Commission stated that the documentation examined revealed that the person suffered severe financial hardship due to the passing of Hurricane Ivan in Grenada in September 2004.
However, the Commission expressed concerns over lack of records.
"What is even more troubling is that (name called) was not included on the Ministry's list of persons who received grants that was supplied to the Commission; instead his name was found when the investigators visited the Ministry. It is therefore questionable whether the funds awarded to (name called) have ever been recorded or accounted for," stated the report.
The report added that there were further inconsistencies which include the non correlation between voucher amounts and the figures provided for by the Ministry.
They cited a voucher made out to another person dated January 12, 2005 for $84,000 but information to the Commission totalled $13,395.
A voucher made out to a woman was also made on this date for $80,000 but the information to the Commission was only for $10,115.
FORMER community development minister Joan Yuille-Williams said yesterday there was no ethnic bias in the awarding of money from what has been called a "secret" scholarship fund.
Yuille-Williams also said she was exploring her legal options and may sue over allegations of misuse of the fund.
In a statement, Yuille-Williams, who was in charge of the disbursement of monies for education from the fund as it was embedded in her ministry, said the money was in fact a financial aid fund, geared towards assisting the needy in furthering their education.
"While I proceed with the legal recourse best suited to establishing objective truth and protecting people's integrity, I remain loathe at this stage to disclose much more of the details, inclusive of actual persons and cases who can testify to the rigorous fairness of the processes and to the widespread success of the programme in so far as it was beneficial to them and the wider community," Yuille-Williams said.
Addressing reports that she was instructed by former prime minister Patrick Manning to "handle this quietly", with regard to disbursements to certain people, Yuille-Williams said the secrecy was in keeping with her ministry's protocol of discretion in assisting the needy.
Describing the discussion on the fund as "salacious" Yuille-Williams said the fund was a legitimate, Cabinet-approved entity, of which many NGOs were aware.
She did not address claims that several PNM supporters allegedly benefitted from the fund, including Adanna Joseph, daughter of former head of the Special Anti-Crime Unit (SAUTT), Brigadier Peter Joseph, which he has since denied.
Yuille-Williams said the process did not allow for prejudice by those approving applications.
"There were never any instances of applicants being declined on the basis of race, colour, creed, gender, or any of the indicators which would have amounted to unlawful, unconstitutional discrimination," Yuille-Williams stated.
"The official application forms did not even carry a field requiring applicants to state their ethnic origin."
She added: "The (former) prime minister's note to this minister that an application should have been handled 'quietly' was not a directive to be secretive, it was simply in keeping with the Administration's reach for discreetness."
Details of the handling of the fund were exposed in Parliament last Monday by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, during her budget contribution.
Persad-Bissessar referred to a report by the Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC), which was compiled following complaints by then activist, now Transport Minister Devant Maharaj, that there was discrimination by the PNM government in the awarding of State scholarships.
The EOC, headed by Prof John Le Guerre, found in a report that seven per cent of the scholarships had been awarded to Indo-Trinidadians and the rest to non-Indo-Trinidadians.
"A statistical finding of one ethnic group of citizens showing a seven per cent presence among the successful candidates, may very well mean that all of the 'seven per cent' who did apply were in fact approved," Yuille-Williams countered yesterday.
"No figures have as yet been given for how many of which ethnic groups actually applied, were approved or declined, and on what grounds."
In its report, the EOC also stated that it had, on many occasions, found that records on the fund appeared to have been "sanitised" to the tune of $15 million and gathering information on the disbursements was difficult.
Yuille-Williams stated: "If it is found by any person or entity (eg the Equal Opportunity Commission) that a less than perfect one hundred per cent performance was maintained by the ministry, that some documents appear to be not readily available, that some applicants may feel themselves to have been unfairly treated, it is expected that such findings would be regarded as being preliminary; and that both findings and individuals should be treated with the sacred judicial process of 'innocent until proven guilty' rather than by the irresponsible waving of documents, irrational threatening of jail terms, or the irascible conduct of those entrusted with the welfare of all citizens.
"May I warn however, that such a stance of judiciousness should not be taken as one of fear, or a reticence about the merits of matters connected to this fund.
"As soon as the time is considered propitious, I shall be most happy to be even more public. And I will do so with confidence in the honesty of the details and with all the vigour of my personal and professional integrity."
Following is Joan Yuille-Williams' full statement:
As the former minister of community development, culture and gender affairs with the responsibility for the Financial Assistance Fund which is now the subject of salacious, misguided and uninformed comment, I wish to state the following fundamental facts for the general public's information, even as I pursue my option for robust legal action to assert the truth unequivocally:
1. The Fund was never a "scholarship programme" but simply a 'financial assistance window' meant to be accessed by the neediest citizens who were in quest of further formal education, training or exposure which would both develop the recipient and redound to the greater benefit of the wider T&T society.
2. The Fund was legitimately established by a Cabinet decision. It was placed in the Ministry of Community Development, alongside a plethora of similar programmes which were operating to assist needy persons—from the youth to the elderly.
Systems were instituted for the proper functioning of the Fund, inclusive of an operating manual, various relevant forms and documents, and the appointment of a Committee to ensure due process.
3. The Committee's mandate was: To receive and review applications; to recommend those to be approved or declined; to forward recommendations for the Permanent Secretary. There was no place for either the personal biases and prejudices of those in the decision-making chain, or intervention by or forcible influence from the Prime Minister, Minister, or any other official who may have been seeking political interests.
4. The Fund was not publicised as widely as perhaps it could or even should have been, but that was for a number of reasons:
• it was a new facility and flaws needed to be identified and rectified, including the quantum of funds available
• it was felt that since the assistance was meant for the needy and more
• vulnerable in the national society, the identities of persons applying and
• receiving assistance should be treated with sensitivity
• we also sought to protect the identities of Committee members so that they
• would not be exposed to direct approaches, unfair harassment, or undue
• pressures that can sometimes be attendant with that position
• the so-called low public profile of this Fund was consistent with the level
• of exposure given to the Ministry's other 'social development' programmes.
5. There was never any attempt to 'hide' the Fund—both Prime Minister Manning and I spoke about it in the Budget Debate nearest its establishment; Members of Parliament representing all parties were thereby informed; NGOs were so alerted; and we counted on a naturally controlling flow via word-of-mouth as opposed to setting off a flood which would have been impossible to manage in the earliest stages. Further publicising was planned.
6. There were never any instances of applicants being declined on the basis of race, colour, creed, gender, or any of the indicators which would have amounted to unlawful, unconstitutional discrimination. The official Application Forms did not even carry a field requiring applicants to state their ethnic origin.
7. A statistical finding of one ethnic group of citizens showing a seven per cent presence among the successful candidates, may very well mean that all of the "seven per cent" who did apply were in fact approved. No figures have as yet been given for how many of which ethnic groups actually applied, were approved or declined, and on what grounds.
8. The sums approved varied simply because of differing costs required for differing educational institutions, or situations which were deemed relevant to the development of the applicant and the wider society.
9. The Prime Minister's note to this Minister that an application should have been handled 'quietly' was not a directive to be secretive—it was simply in keeping with the Administration's reach for discreetness.
10. The overall responsibility to transparency and accountability was considered to be met and ensured by virtue of the operational systems established, including recording-keeping, regular audits, and the democratic safeguard of such a wide cross-section of the general public being aware of the Fund.
11. If it is found by any person or entity (eg the Equal Opportunity Commission) that a less than perfect 100 per cent performance was maintained by the Ministry, that some documents appear to be not readily available, that some applicants may feel themselves to have been unfairly treated, it is expected that such findings would be regarded as being preliminary; and that both findings and individuals should be treated with the sacred judicial process of 'innocent until proven guilty' rather than by the irresponsible waving of documents, irrational threatening of jail terms, or the irascible conduct of those entrusted with the welfare of all citizens.
While I proceed with the legal recourse best suited to establishing objective truth and protecting people's integrity, I remain loathe at this stage to disclose much more of the details—inclusive of actual persons and cases who can testify to the rigourous fairness of the processes and to the widespread success of the programme in so far as it was beneficial to them and the wider community.
May I warn however, that such a stance of judiciousness should not be taken as one of fear, or a reticence about the merits of matters connected to this Fund. As soon as the time is considered propitious, I shall be most happy to be even more public. And I will do so with confidence in the honesty of the details and with all the vigour of my personal and professional integrity.
Transport Minister Devant Maharaj said yesterday he was not surprised at former community development minister Joan Yuille-Williams' denial of ethnic discrimination in the disbursement of scholarship money from a State fund.
Maharaj said Yuille-Williams has responded as he "expected" and he maintained that the facts reported by the Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC), speak for themselves.
"The EOC was appointed by the PNM, so there can be no question of objectivity here," Maharaj said in a telephone interview yesterday,
"The facts paint a different picture to what the former minister is saying, which is what I expected her to say. This is damage control, without addressing the issue."
Maharaj is due to meet with the Commission on Tuesday for a conciliation hearing on the injustice rendered to him. He will be accompanied by his attorney, Christlyn Moore.
Maharaj feels he has accomplished much of what he set out to do.
"I feel that this fund was used for the grooming of people in a Patrick Manning clique, who were to replace others in the PNM at some point," he said.
"What I want is for this not to be repeated."
$1m Petrotrin scholarships raise eyebrows
SHALIZA HASSANALI & BRENT ZEPHYRINE
Tweet
Petrotrin president Kenneth Allum.
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.”
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 21 guests
