Dr. Vin Lawrence has finally done the right thing, which he should have quite a while ago, in stepping down as chairman of the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) - and his directorship of other government agencies - over the Sandal Whitehouse controversy.
It is unfortunate that it required public pressure to build up, in the face of the publication of the report by Contractor General Greg Christie, implying corruption and cronyism at Whitehouse, for Dr. Lawrence to arrive at this conclusion to fully let go.
It is unfortunate, too, that Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller appears to have missed the point in declining the immediate resignations of the other members of the UDC board, betraying either a misunderstanding and callous disregard for the etiquette and substance of institutional vibrancy and public confidence.
Although he reminds us that he had early this year indicated that he would retire from the public sector on his 60th birthday - but had been persuaded to stay on a bit - Dr. Lawrence has clearly come around to the position that public confidence is critical to credibility and sustainable operation of institutions; especially if these institutions are enterprises funded from the public purse, which is to say taxpayers' money, and are expected to operate to the public good.
In the case of Sandals Whitehouse and the reported US$41 million overrun on the hotel - owned by two government agencies, the UDC and National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ) as well as Gordon 'Butch' Stewart's company, Gorstew - there is much public cynicism.
For people have heard Mr. Christie's complaint that the project was conducted without ethical constraints. Government procurement rules were flouted with egregious wantonness, a claim disputed by the UDC, while enterprises in which the key protagonists have interests received contracts without even nominal attempts at public tender.
The public owes Mr. Christie a debt of gratitude for the courage with which he addressed the task and the forthrightness with which he declared on the issues, preferring to be led by his interpretation of the facts rather than sentiment or relationships.
Dr. Lawrence has been in the firing line over Whitehouse and his resignation has been rightly accepted by the Prime Minister. That, however, is to suggest that the other members of the UDC board were mere puppets who performed only to Dr. Lawrence's whim. Did they have no responsibility? Did they not ask questions?
In any event, they do not have to continue to be directors of the UDC to answer any questions that either forensic auditors or Parliament's Public Accounts Commission may wish to pose. While they remain at the UDC, the agency will have to delay any agenda of reform.
But even as we focus on the UDC, we believe that serious questions need to be asked of other partners in the Whitehouse project, especially NIBJ, which also had a responsibility to ensure the proper use of public money for which it carries a fiduciary responsibility. From all that has been said, the NIBJ, and perhaps others, allowed the UDC and Dr. Lawrence free rein. That, to us, would be irresponsible.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY RELECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
