Half-truths, sideshows and the real issues (Part III) - Questions surrounding the dismissal of Latibeaudiere still not answered

Published: Sunday | November 29, 2009


Dr Omar Davies, Contributor

In my piece published by The Sunday Gleaner of November 15, I sought to provide the public with the 'full story' behind the Golding administration's decision to dismiss Derick Latibeaudiere from the position of governor of the Bank of Jamaica (BOJ).

In the process, I was obliged to take issue with some of the assertions made by the prime minister in his address to Parliament on Tuesday, November 3.

One such assertion was that the administration had no option but to fire Latibeaudiere, as he was unwilling to compromise on his housing allowance.

I have seen questions raised in the media about my challenging the prime minister on this matter.

Rental of residence

My response to such a query is simple and direct: In a letter dated March 10, 2009, to Audley Shaw, the minister of finance, the bank secretary, Mr Rudolph Muir, provided full details on the exercise which had been carried out to assess the rental of the governor's new residence.

Paragraph Four of Mr Muir's letter is as follows:

"Contractually, the bank is bound to pay the average rental value produced by the process described above. Any variation from this approach would have to be done with the acceptance of, and agreement by, the governor, as it will entail a change in his contract provision.

"In discussions with the governor, he has indicated that he is not averse to having dialogue with a view to reaching some accommodation in this regard."

Two questions need to be answered. The first is: Was the prime minister informed about the existence of this letter prior to his speech? Second, why was no attempt made over a period of more than seven months to have this dialogue, which could have led to a mutually acceptable compromise?Apart from the issue of the payment for rental, another question which has been raised is: Why had not the governor's annual salary package been submitted to Cabinet for approval?

The answer is simple. Readers will no doubt recall the controversy a few years ago surrounding the salaries paid to some public officers.

Cabinet approval

Following a comprehensive review of the matter, the salary packages for the top officials were approved by Cabinet.

The Human Resources Sub-Committee of the BOJ board went one step further and inserted the following clause (Paragraph 4 viii) in the governor's contract:

"It is understood and agreed that the governor's salary and allo-wances shall be increased effective as of April 1 in each year by such percentage as represents the wage increase offered to public-sector employees, which is announced by the relevant authority as being applicable in such year."

In simple language, once the governor's base salary had been approved by Cabinet, any future percentage increase, or freeze, would mirror the treatment of all employees in the public sector.

As such, annual approval by Cabinet was unnecessary.

The question of the real reason for the dismissal of Governor Latibeaudiere remains unanswered.

In the meanwhile, Moody's and Fitch have both joined S&P in downgrading our credit ratings with a negative outlook.

Even as I welcome the new governor, a professional of a high calibre, I wonder what will be his fate when his integrity and professionalism force him to disagree with the political directorate.

 
 
 
The opinions on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. The Gleaner reserves the right not to publish comments that may be deemed libelous, derogatory or indecent. To respond to The Gleaner please use the feedback form.