The Editor, Sir:

I write in response to Monday's editorial, 'Aubyn Hill and the case for transparency'. I agree with your position; however, let me address the matters of conflict of interest; the need for Mr Hill to respond; and value for money.

1. The fact that Mr Hill is the chairman of SCJ Holdings and was awarded this contract is not necessarily a conflict of interest. Such a conflict would only arise were Mr Hill, in his capacity as chairman, made or influenced the decision to award the contract to himself or to his own company. The Contractor General Act requires that a declaration be made if there is any relation between the awardee and the provider of the contract. This is the same basis for MPs to accept government contracts

2. The contract was awarded by the Ministry of Finance/Ministry of Agriculture and, therefore, should be the ones held accountable and answerable to the people of Jamaica. Mr Hill, in his capacity as awardee, has no case to answer on the appro-priateness of the contract.

3. Minister Christopher Tufton and Permanent Secretary Stanberry have taken a dangerous path by claiming value was had for the money paid on the contract. This reminds me of the controversy surrounding the heavy cost overruns on the Sandals Whitehouse project a few years back. The then administration and their apologists claimed value for money. What the goodly minister and permanent secretary are saying in this case is that the $1.3-million divestment proceeds were more than fair value for the $27-million consultancy. Value for money is not quite that simple. I ask the following:

Could we have extracted similar value for less cost, such as using ministry/DBJ personnel instead of Mr Hill?

Were Mr Hill paid tenfold ($270 million) over the same period, wouldn't we have still received value for money?

What value of divestment proceeds would render the $27-million contract 'NOT value for money'?

The fact is that nearly all employees and some consultants are expected to provide value way in excess of salary/contracted amounts. The typical nurse, teacher and police officer gives much greater value than their respective salaries.

I would advise both gentlemen to rethink their respective knee-jerk "value-for-money" reactions to such an outcry from the media and the general public. Instead, they should assure us that proper procedures were followed and that alternatives were fully explored before taking the decision to award the contract. As you clearly articulated in your editorial, transparency is key and, I would add, accountability.

I am, etc.,

ROBERT C. WYNTER

robwyn@cwjamaica.com

4 Haining Crescent

Kingston 5