The ongoing controversy over who was responsible for the more than J$2.6 billion overrun in the construction of the Sandals Whitehouse hotel placed on the front burner the matter of how public officials ought to account for the people's resources.

In the case of Whitehouse, no one can claim to have emerged from this mess still feeling pristine. Not the private partner, not the state agencies, the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) and the former National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ), which, between them, own two thirds of the real estate.

As has so far emerged, consulting contracts on this project were handed out to subsidiaries or companies connected to shareholders or senior officials without competitive bids or regard for the Government's procurement policies. And it seems that anyone could order design change or expansion and have it done, without regard to cost. Management of the project, the responsibility of the UDC, broke down.

The board of the company that owns the property didn't meet for nearly two years and no one seemed to care.

Whitehouse, if nothing else, cemented the case for greater transparency in the management of the taxpayers' assets, a fact further highlighted by a report in the Financial Gleaner on Friday, on the status of the Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort in Montego Bay.

That property was developed primarily by private investors, but the UDC invested US$3 million in the venture and has a stake of 6.5 per cent in the venture. The NIBJ, now absorbed into the Development Bank of Jamaica (DBJ), invested US$11 million in the project, but that was in the form of preference shares, which should mean that it is assured of a return on its money. Whether this is the case, we do not know.

The UDC said, in answer to questions by the Financial Gleaner, that the Ritz-Carlton development has returned operating profit, but not net surplus to be shared by stockholders. Debt obligations eat up the excess between sales and operating costs.

But precisely what this means the public does not know, for the UDC does not regularly report on its portfolio of investments and/or provide breakdowns of their economic performance. Neither did the NIBJ. Indeed, the DBJ, the NIBJ's successor, didn't even bother to answer questions sent to it about Ritz-Carlton. This is absolutely untenable.

No one expects the financial information about private companies to be generally available for public broadcast. But in cases where taxpayers' money becomes equity investment in privately-held businesses, John Public has a right to know his resources have been utilised and what returns, if any, he can expect. There are credible mechanisms for such to happen.

But there is a more fundamental obligation on public institutions to be open and transparent about their ventures. In that regard, all equity investments by organisations like the UDC, the DBJ or other state agencies, should be publicly available and easily accessible. Accounts must be published and not, as in the case of annual reports of the PCJ, tabled in Parliament last week, 18 months after the close of the financial year.

Perhaps there should be legislation to ensure more rigorous policing of public accountability, including the right of individuals to sue the managers of public agencies who fail, on a timely basis, to fulfil reporting obligations.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.