By Cathy Richards, JTV News Editor

(JTV News) — The Auditor General’s Report has disclosed that the contracts awarded and the over $16,000 paid monthly to Claude Skelton-Cline was not a value-added move but rather employment for the contractor.

The Auditor General’s Report on the contracts given to Skelton-Cline was laid on the table in the House of Assembly and has been seen by JTV News.

According to the Report, the contractual arrangement was initiated by Skelton Cline’s submission of a proposal to provide services and no efforts were expended to ascertain his qualifications to perform the proposed services or to obtain alternative submissions via a competitive process.

The report explains that on March 8, 2019, Skelton-Cline emailed a two-page proposal to the Premier’s Office offering his services as Chief Strategic Advisor “to assist the office of the Premier throughout the strategic planning and execution of key initiatives”.

The proposal outlined three specific areas of focus, as stated in the report, Climate Change, 1000 Jobs in 1000 Days, and Youth Empowerment. The proposal also presented a list of duties and responsibilities for the Chief Strategic Advisor.

The document included a proposed contractual period of four years at $196,000 per annum ($16,330.00 monthly) — a remuneration that would place the consultant’s pay above that of Cabinet Ministers and the Premier.

The report tells us that both the proposal and the draft agreement submitted by Skelton-Cline placed the consultant in an “advisory” role with no obligation or commitment to produce results and no requirement to demonstrate improvements or added value to the Public Service.

Two and a half weeks after submitting the proposals, Skelton-Cline was engaged by the Premier’s Office as a “strategic advisor” via petty contract and stipulated a term of six months from March 25, 2019 and remuneration of $16,330.00 per month with five-percent end-of-contract gratuity.

The Auditor General’s office concludes:

158. Review of the documents, information and contracts suggests that the primary purpose of this consultancy was not to add value to the Government but rather to provide employment for the Consultant.

159. The records do not show any demonstrated effort by the Consultant to actually satisfy the deliverables stipulated in the contracts. The audit confirmation exercises performed indicate that much of the work reported or claimed by the Consultant was undertaken by persons and programmes independent of the consultancy. In a number of cases his association with the programmes was either fleeting or non-existent. The information in the Consultant’s periodic reports was largely duplicated without demonstrating any advancement or effort to achieve progress. As a result, very little was gained from this arrangement and the Government failed to receive value for money on these contracts.

160. After a period of two and a half years, none of the initiatives stipulated in the three contracts have been delivered. Similarly, none of the ad-hoc “non-contractual” assignments have been realized. This is with the exception with the COVID-19 related initiatives that were self-determining. Substantial reports and information were received only where the Consultant was assigned as a part of a committee or working group. These documents were usually prepared by other members of those bodies as was the case with the supporting documents for the Seafarers programme and the report issued by the Economic Advisory Council.

161. The failure of the Premier’s Office to adhere to the procurement regulations for competitive submissions resulted in substantial costs incurred on this (and other similar no bid consultancy contracts). It also created a disservice to other citizens who might be more properly qualified and more able to deliver the specific initiatives contained in the contracts.

162. The Government would have been better served by establishing different thinktanks or other mechanisms to address the areas identified under the three contracts. This would have availed the process to expert input and presented actionable results.

163. The decreasing contractual remuneration in each successive engagement suggests that the administration was aware that value was not being achieved from this arrangement.

On Wednesday, Skelton-Cline commented: “I feel no compulsion to defend myself. My documentation and record speak for that. Anything else Jehovah will be my defense.”