Wasting taxpayer funds

Wilberne Persaud, Columnist

My objective in the last column was to highlight the difference between Jamaican enquiry versus United States-inquiry proceedings.

Two words from the original text gave The Gleaner its headline — uncontrollable laughter upon watching and listening to Tony Rebel's I Can't Recall might lead one to view the Jamaican enquiries as an "expensive joke".

Readers would, however, have grasped the contrasts I wanted to highlight.

Beyond that, I should point out an error that changes meaning.

My original submission spoke of the US Financial Crisis Inquiry Report that provided "an amazing amount of material to chew on. Pity is, that amazing amount of material often proves terrifying." The published sentence read: "Pity is that an amazing amount of material often proves terrifying."

This formulation changes the meaning entirely. An amazing amount of material never naturally, proves terrifying. The idea was to indicate that some of the revelations from "that amazing amount of material" the Crisis Report published, contained specific episodes and information that would prove terrifying to anyone concerned about financial stability in general and his/her assets held in the financial system specifically — pension fund, CDs etc.

Beyond those two issues, a comment from a reader calling him/herself "The truth shall set me free" was heartening. Usually, the responses I get to a column of this nature tend to be exceedingly politically charged — on either side of the PNP/JLP divide. This reader speaks of him/herself as "not a supporter of nor a sympathiser of any of Jamaica's political parties; but as a proud product of the soil of Jamaica, I join the chorus of like-minded Jamaicans who wish Jamaica well and want to see our country and its people to prosper".

He or she has "no doubt that the writer falls into this category", that is, proud Jamaican wanting "to see our country and its people prosper".

gracious interpretation

Let me say thanks for this gracious interpretation of my motives and as well, try to answer the questions posed: "Tell us what would be your substitute for these commissions (FINSAC and Manatt-Dudus), given civil society demand for answers in respect to these situations."

First, I must indicate that I was a member of the board of FINSAC from its inception in January, 1997. I was and am, sworn to secrecy of its confidential deliberations and never have breached that undertaking.

That said, I would have had created, a commission to inquire into the mid-1996 collapse of Jamaica's indigenous financial services sector. This of course would include FINSAC as the response of our Government. This commission, as the US commission was mandated to do, would consider the whole range of issues denoted in their terms of reference, some of which I quoted in last week's column.

I merely mention the general issues of financial regulation and regulators' performance; statutory and legislative issues, including supervisory requirements; monetary policy, including the availability and terms of credit; choice of borrowers and projects to provide financial accommodation; interconnectedness and intra-group lending; financial leverage; accounting practices with respect to asset valuation and reporting, and of course, fraud.

Second, an appropriately mandated robust commission would necessarily seek and acquire evidence that included, among other things, minutes of board meetings from all the failed institutions, correspondence and emails regarding particular decisions, letters and conversations, legal opinion and advice on particular issues.

To accomplish its mandate, a strong research team would provide support. Consider this, suppose a bridge collapsed killing many, would you question eyewitnesses to the event, survivors washed down the gully, family of the dead and not consider its construction details, architectural drawings and engineering specifications?

Would you not seek analysis of the physical structure and rock formation of the foundation, consider the maintenance schedule and employ engineers, geologists, etc, to arrive at a true understanding of the catastrophic failure?

Our reader's next question is interesting, it is about composition of the commission: "People who currently comprised these two commissions, are they competent to sit and render meaningful suggestions in their reports? (Will they offer) suggestions that will provide guidance on how to prevent similar future problems?"

My response is itself a question: Would you not have members of the commission be "prominent (Jamaican) citizens with national recognition and significant depth of experience in such fields as banking, regulation of markets, taxation, finance, economics, consumer protection, and housing?"

The US Financial Crisis Inquiry commission, even though I take issue with some of its conclusions, certainly met its criteria. Frankly, I am not certain ours could favourably withstand comparison.

Furthermore, openness of access to the belly of the inquiry would rank as fantastic in the Jamaican situation. Our public flounders in the dark, befuddled by emotional responses and sound-bite accusations, aware of little of substance, not even information from the sparse public-domain material lodged at our courts.

In the US, all reviewed material is available, "the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University and the Robert Crown Law Library at Stanford Law School have agreed to host the new website and make the data more accessible in the coming years". Please see

http://fcic.law.stanford.edu/about

With respect to Manatt-Dudus, the prevalent "I can't recall" response suggests a hearing with recourse to perjury might have prompted greater disclosure.

Allow me to end with this from Aristotle: "At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst."

wilbe65@yahoo.com