Editorial | Mr Bryan’s cockhorse

Dunstan Bryan made what, in another context and in different circumstances, would, in its simplicity, have been a profound observation.

“Audits are critical to good governance and management,” he told Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) last week.

Indeed, Mr Bryan said that in his role as permanent secretary, and therefore the chief accounting officer for the health ministry – where he is responsible for the management of J$113 billion – he stands firmly behind audits. “Without audits, I am blind,” he said.

Mr Bryan’s embrace of audits, it seems, is limited to those by his ministry’s internal auditors, or when it isn’t his stewardship that is being called to account. That is a conclusion that could reasonably be drawn from the aggressiveness and hubris with which he responded to the findings of the Office of the Auditor General’s audit into how the health ministry spent billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The quality of the audit commissioned by Auditor General Pamela Monroe Ellis, Mr Bryan haughtily told the parliamentarians, was “sub-par”. And in responding to criticisms for using government purchase orders as substitutes for formal contracts in acquiring services worth many millions of dollars, he declared that Ms Monroe Ellis’ “opinion or ruminations do not bind me”.

Insisting that he broke no law, Mr Bryan added: “As a matter of fact, until the auditor general can provide in law what rule the compliance audit’s finding was predicated on, I have no obligation. None!”

Mr Bryan’s jousting was more capricious than quixotic, belying his declared appreciation of audits and tone of Ms Monroe Ellis’ report. Mr Bryan appeared, too, ignorant of the fact that sometimes windmills really are giants.

PROCURED WITHOUT FORMAL CONTRACTS

Ms Monroe Ellis’ audit specifically covered the period June 2020 to November 2021, for which documents relating to J$619 million in expenditure were examined.

During that period, the ministry paid J$337 million to six hotels and a guest house to provide accommodation for people put in quarantine. The audit found that only for one was there a formal contract. With respect to the others, valued at J$293 million, the agreements were concluded with purchase orders provided by the ministry. The ministry’s position was that urgency demanded these emergency procurement arrangements.

Although sympathetic to the speed with which the ministry had to act, Ms Monroe Ellis insisted that the use of an emergency procurement option – which the rules allow – was not inconsistent with maintaining “good procurement practices”, including having “simple formal contracts” that ensured “transparency and accountability”.

It wasn’t only with the quarantine accommodations there were problems. At least another J$128 million in services were procured without formal contracts, and the audit also discovered other areas in which regulations weren’t followed in the distribution of money.

In his combative performance at the PAC, Mr Bryan accused Ms Monroe Ellis of missing context – that the crisis demanded immediate action – and implied that her report dumped on many thousands of health professionals who were on the frontline of the pandemic. It did no such thing.

In fact, the report acknowledged the crisis, but argued that there were better, more transparent and accountable ways the agreements should have been executed. Further, hinting that the findings implicitly attacked frontline health workers was, at best, a distraction. No one would claim red herring. The audit questioned the decisions of accountable officers.

In Mr Bryan’s estimation, a purchase order, in the circumstance, was sufficient as a contract. In our view, circumstances notwithstanding, it shouldn’t have been enough for spending over half a billion dollars, no matter the legal loopholes that might exist.

Purchase orders, the audit report noted, generally represent “a commitment to the service provider that (the Government) will pay for services to be delivered”. Proceeding on that basis may be reasonable in circumstances where the expenditure is small.

Ms Monroe Ellis’ argument to the PAC on the situations in which a purchase order might suffice as a contract, carries great weight with this newspaper. She said: “If it is going to be used as a contract, then the terms of agreement must be clearly stipulated to hold the supplier accountable and to protect the Government.” Which, really, is protecting taxpayers.

Mr Bryan’s mount, from our vantage point, seems more cockhorse than steed. Even before his next session with the PAC, he should dismount his ride, acknowledge it for what it is, and reset the discourse on the audit report.