The findings of the forensic audit of the Sandals Whitehouse hotel project highlighted a problem in Jamaica, which was, to a limited degree, addressed in Parliament last week in answers by the Industry and Technology Minister, Phillip Paulwell, to questions posed by the Opposition's Spokesman on Energy, Clive Mullings.

Mr. Paulwell reported that the Cabinet had recently ruled that no member of a board of a Government company should benefit from any contract with that company. This goes beyond the traditional declaration of interest to board colleagues, or, in the case of parliamentarians, asking the legislature for exemption from the rule that members, of firms in which they are beneficial owners, should not have contracts with the Government.

Mr. Mullings's concern was apparently triggered by an Opposition discovery that Ms. Barbara Clarke, a ruling party politician who is chairman of the Government service station company, Petcom, in her private capacity, owns a company that until recently, trained staff at Petcom's service stations.

No one here questions Ms. Clarke's integrity or the quality of service provided by her company to Petcom. But all of us would be aware of the potential for conflict of interest in circumstances such as those in which Ms. Clarke found herself, notwithstanding the fact that contracts may have been in place prior to her elevation to the Petcom chairmanship.

In that regard, we support the administration's decision as an interim measure, but feel that the issue is one that demands deeper and rigorous analysis ahead of a broad, clear and transparent policy on who can serve on the boards of government companies.

The Sandals Whitehouse debacle of cost overruns, cronyism and flagrant mismanagement demands no less.

The audit team that tried to make sense of the $2 billion fiasco makes the point that a major part of the problem with the project that led to the runaway cost, was its "more than fair quota of shared executives." For instance, Dr. Vin Lawrence, the chairman of Ackendown Newtown Development Company (ANDCO), the government/private sector joint venture that developed the hotel, was also chairman of the Urban Development Corporation, one of its shareholders. Other UDC executives had senior posts in ANDCO while the private entities of shareholders and executives also operated in the project. "These relationships were not good for the project, for ... there was too much power in the hands of some executives, leading to a lack of objectivity and accountability," says the report.

We know of this debacle because of the falling-out between key players. But what else do we not know about? For the fact is that the public sector is riddled with cross-membership of boards, causing some people to wield enormous power with public resources, but with little or no accountability.

Dr. Lawrence may have been the archetypal éminence grise with his many hats. There are others, however, who, maybe not of the same power, but are of substantial influence.

We will certainly be told that in a small country with a limited talent pool, it is to be expected that there will be cross-membership of boards. It happens in the private sector.

That may be true. Yet we have to be creative in limiting the incestuousness and in holding people to public accountability and serious sanctions when they fail in their responsibilities.

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.