Dear Editor
RECENTLY, the media aired the story of a very senior regional official, Pauline Lucas, who reportedly stood her ground demanding that a company contracted by her region to build a health centre, carried out remedial works in the form of affixing a specified quality of roofing as per contract, and having the works verified before any further payment could be made. This was to replace what was an inferior quality type that the contracting firm had initially used.

It is interesting to note that the contracting firm had insisted on receiving additional funds, before it proceeded on remedial works as requested.

This particular incident as reported, facilitated an open window into the numerous questionable practices that have been perennially plaguing administrative regions with regard to important projects: use of inferior quality of material, that cost the same as the requisite quality; contractors demanding disbursements for works that have not been certified as being done in accordance with contract specifications, and completed; contrary building executions despite prior advice, and a host of other issues that paint quite a perceptive picture of illegalities.

There was even the disturbing issue of the engineer who had been initially responsible for the particular works, not being employed at this region anymore, but taking away the relevant documents that apparently had to do with a project. How can this be, when such documents are the property of the particular region, forming part of its reference archive? This type of action leads one to ask so many questions, particularly those surrounding impropriety.

If this particular case mirrors similar incidents in other regions, then it says a lot about the quality of their management, especially the regional executive officers (REOs). This, undoubtedly, is one of the burdensome legacies of the over two decades of PPP/C’s governance. Of course, one will recall the REO who was wanted some years ago for a reported theft of millions of dollars.

But REO Lucas has clearly shown what following the rules to the letter can bring in terms of letting contracting parties understand their contractual obligations. She stood her ground, did not budge, although further payment demands were made and even reminded the contracting party that the requested replacements of zinc sheets will have to be examined before he receives further payment.

I commend her, for she has set the bar for ensuring that taxpayers’ money is properly spent, in terms of value for money; as well as whatever project is executed, in this instance a health centre at Eccles, is proper for its services to community citizens.

Regards
Troy Garraway