Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Algernon Cargill
8 Bristol Road, Nassau East
P.O. Box EE-16855
Nassau, Bahamas
Telephone: 242-324-6556 Email: Algernonc@hotmail.com
14 May 2013
Dr. James Moultrie
Chairman of the Board
The National Insurance Board
P.O. Box N-7508
Nassau, Bahamas
Dear Chairman Moultrie,
Re: Preliminary Rebuttal to the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report
This letter is provided to confirm our scheduled meeting with the Board of Directors of the
National Insurance Board (NIB) and its legal counsel on Tuesday, 14
th
May, 2013 at 4pm. As
you are aware, my attorneys, Alfred Sears and Elliott Lockhart and their team will be attending
with me. In addition, this letter serves to fully apprise the NIB Board of Directors of the
following:
1. The nature and purpose of the Judicial Review applied for 13
th
May, 2013;
2. The lack of due process in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Review; and
3. My preliminary rebuttal to the allegations and findings in the Grant Thornton NIB
Forensic Report.
THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW
We are seeking an order of Certiorari to remove into the Court and quash the decision of the
Minister of Labour and National Insurance to appoint the accounting firm of Grant Thornton.
Further we are seeking a declaration that the purported decision of the Minister of Labour and
National Insurance to appoint the accounting firm of Grant Thornton to conduct a forensic
review of the National Insurance Board amounts to a usurpation of the powers of the Board of
Directors of the National Insurance Board.
Alternatively, if Grant Thornton was properly appointed, we are seeking a declaration that the
procedure followed by Grant Thornton in the conduct of the forensic review was biased, unfair,
irrational, not in accordance with generally accepted practices in the conduct of forensic
investigations, and in breach of the Rules of Natural Justice.
2
THE LACK THE DUE PROCESS IN THE FORENSIC REVIEW CONDUCTED BY
GRANT THORNTON
Grant Thornton did not follow generally accepted practices in its forensic review of NIB. Grant
Thornton did not engage me, the key subject in this matter, in an interview on the allegations in
the 8 November, 2012 letter by Mr. Gregory Moss, former Chairman of NIB. In November and
December of 2012 we contacted by email and letter Grant Thornton. The primary purpose of our
correspondence was to advise that we were available and willing to assist in the forensic review.
It was very important to me that I clear my reputation. Given that I had filed a fairly detailed
affidavit, which contained primarily my defense of the allegations in response to a 8 November
2012 letter by Gregory Moss that was leaked to the media; I did not want to repeat the same
explanations to this letter in an interview with Grant Thornton. We therefore, in our
correspondence with them requested that they provide the full scope of the Forensic Audit and
the additional issues and questions that they would be seeking to address flowing from this audit.
They did not respond.
It was reported in the Nassau Guardian of Friday, 1
st
February, 2013 that Grant Thornton
intended to release its forensic report on Monday 4
th
February, 2013. Indeed it was stated in the
article that Grant Thornton was putting the finishing touches on the report into the accounts at
National Insurance Board (NIB) which will be presented to the Government by Monday [4
th
February, 2013].Mr. Paul Gomez, the Managing Partner at Grant Thornton was quoted as
stating in this article that the Bahamian people will see exactly what happened and there isnt
going to be any ambiguity because the facts are going to be laid. Later that afternoon Mr.
Gomez/Grant Thornton contacted my lawyers for the first time since the forensic review began
in November of 2012. Mr. Gomez advised them that they were available to meet with me either
on Saturday morning (the next day) or Sunday, the 2
nd
or 3
rd
February, 2013. Mr. Gomez stated
that they were prepared to meet with me on those days but did not address my request for a copy
of the terms of reference of the review and a list of issues to be covered during the meeting. My
lawyers wrote a confirmatory email that afternoon that I was not available during that weekend
but was available on Thursday, 7
th
February 2013 to assist them in their review. My lawyers also
reminded Mr. Gomez that we had not as yet been provided with the requested terms of reference
and list of issues that he wished to have me address. Mr. Gomez, in his reply by email that
evening, stated, in part, that the auditors had no questions for me at that time, but that I
could meet with them to ask them questions.
On the 5
th
February, 2013 my attorneys wrote Mr. Paul Gomez, Managing Partner of Grant
Thornton, reminding them the I was available and willing to assist Grant Thornton in its review
of NIB and also of my request to be provided with a list of issues to be covered in an interview to
enable me to prepare for and bring any relevant documents to the proposed interview and the
terms of reference for the forensic investigation. We did not receive a reply to this letter.
On the 8
th
February, 2013 my lawyers received a letter of the same date from Thomas Evans,
Q.C., acting on behalf of Grant Thornton, providing the terms of the engagement, namely an
3
examination of (1) the contents of the letter of Mr. Gregory Moss dated the 8
th
November, 2012
and (2) the contents of my Affidavit dated the 27
th
November, 2012. The letter also disclosed
that, at some unspecified time, the terms were expanded to include the Sandilands Project and
Bonuses approval/salary increases of Executive Management during the years 2008 through
2012. The letter further stated that I would be asked to respond to the allegations contained in
the letter of the 8
th
November, 2012 and to assist with the other matters.
My lawyers replied to Mr. Thomas Evans by letter dated the 12
th
February, 2013 and asked
whether there were any specific questions or issues that had arisen in the course of the
investigation that Grant Thornton wishes to engage me and that, upon receipt of his response, I
was willing to meet with Grant Thornton, along with my lawyer and consultant forensic expert at
a mutually convenient time to which we did not receive a response.
That notwithstanding my lawyers requests, since the 28
th
November, 2012, that I was available to
be interviewed in order to address any outstanding issues or questions not addressed in my
affidavit, the accountants refused to provide me with questions, but provided written questions to
other employees of the National Insurance Board prior to the interview of those persons.
PRELIMINARY REBUTTALTO THE ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS
In summary, I found all the allegations to be shallow and without merit. All the allegations were
thoroughly addressed in my affidavit of November 20, 2012. I also found the findings of Grant
Thornton to be biased and incomplete.
I apologize if any part of this preliminary response is not clear as I was given a short time of less
than two (2) weeks to respond to a Forensic Report that was completed over five (5) months.
Further, it is my intention to support every rebuttal point in this letter with documentary
evidence, as the legal process may require, when necessary. I think it is unfair for any person or
Grant Thornton to consider and conclude that the any one employee at NIB could possess the
power and control to act outside and independent of the internal controls and set procedures at
NIB.
Given the short time allowed since receipt of Grant Thorntons Forensic Report to provide a
response, my rebuttal letter is preliminary in nature and I have not had the opportunity to review
all the allegations and findings presented in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report, nor have I had
the time to respond in full and complete detail to all of the matters raised in this rebuttal. As
such, the rebuttal provided is based on what I have had the opportunity to review and/or analyse
in the Forensic Report to date. It may be that had I had more time to conduct a more complete
review of the Forensic Report, I would have reached different or additional conclusions in my
defence. The extent there may be different and additional conclusions cannot be known until
such further review is performed by me.
4
Allegation # 1 The Sandyport Contract
My letter to Gregory Moss dated October 9, 2012, (copy attached and numbered Exhibit #1) and
corroborating confirmation from Patrick Ward, (copy attached and numbered Exhibit #2)
confirm the actual events that transpired. I am not in a position to respond to any of the
conjecture and/or assumptions made by Grant Thornton in the report as I only became aware of
the lease and rental of the apartment on February 26, 2010, when the matter was referred to me
by Raymond Wells. Until this time, the entire process was managed by the Information
Technology Department (IT) under Mr. Wells leadership and I have already confirmed and
corroborated that he executed the lease, he approved the apartment rental, and he was present
when I telephoned Patrick Ward and received the approval, after full disclosure was made to
Patrick Ward. Full disclosure entailed information that the company that executed the lease, Jes-
El-Car Ltd, was beneficially owned by my brother, Godwin Cargill and the due diligence
reported to me by Mr. Wells that his employee, Gail Carey utilized in recommending this unit
over the other units inspected. Further based on the information provided in the Grant Thornton
NIB Forensic Report, it is apparent that a transparent process occurred and a competitive pricing
analysis was undertaken by the IT Department, led by Raymond Wells, in the search and
selection of the apartment and execution of the lease document.
I also confirmed that during a subsequent meeting that Patrick Ward and I had with former Prime
Minister, Hubert Ingraham, that the rental of the apartment was again fully disclosed.
Gail Carey, the IT Department employee that managed the securing of permanent residence for
the AIS team, has also confirmed, in writing and during her interview, that prior to the rental of
the apartment and payment to the lessor, Jes-El-Car Ltd that she has had no direct or indirect
communication with me about the apartment nor did she express any concern to me. Her
communications were with her supervisor, Raymond Wells, and armed with this information
together with the transparent process followed by Ms. Carey, as well as the pricing and unit
comparisons, together with the reported increased safety element of Sandyport viz a viz
Delaporte Point, he approved the rental under the delegated authority he had for managing the
project costs, which is the exact authority he had to approve the hotel rental costs for AIS during
their stay in temporary housing.
Gregory Moss allegations that Ms. Velma Thompson (a cousin of mine and an employee of
NIB) coincidentally received a telephone call from her sister, Maggie etc. is without merit,
particularly as neither he, nor the Grant Thornton team interviewed Ms. Thompson. Had they
interviewed her, she could have confirmed that she is a distant cousin of mine and at no time
prior to the apartment rental, and even to this day, has she had any discussion with me about the
rental of the Sandyport Apartment.
The following bullet points summarize the comments noted immediately above by me:
5
The Information Technology (IT) department had full responsibility for the
management of the AIS Contract and this contract included a provision for NIB to
pay for housing costs. It is a standard practice for departments and their heads to be
responsible for all cost activities related to their departments.
That Mr. Raymond Wells, Deputy Director, IT, had the full responsibility for this
contract and his project budget that was approved by the Board of Directors included
housing costs for the AIS Team.
That Mr. Wells initially approved hotel accommodations for the team and later, at
AIS request, requested his assistant to secure permanent housing.
That the recommendations for hotel and permanent housing were managed
exclusively by Mr. Raymond Wells and his team and during this process, until the
request for payment was referred to me, I had neither involvement nor knowledge of
the process - Mr. Wells statement and that of his assistant, Gail Carey, verify this
statement.
That I have had no communication with Ms. Gail Carey about the rental of the
apartment, or with Velma Thompson.
That at the time Mr. Raymond Wells referred the Payment Request to me on February
26
th
, which was dated February 25
th
; I recognized that the name of the company that
the apartment was leased from was that of my brothers company, Jes-El-Car Ltd. I
recognized the name as the name is that of my brothers 3 children Jessica, Elliott
and Carla Cargill.
I disclosed this to Mr. Wells and together, on February 26, 2012, we telephoned Mr.
Patrick Ward, explained the circumstances, and secured his approval as Chairman of
the Board to proceed with the Lease that was already executed. (Mr. Patrick Wards
interview statement to Grant Thornton and his letter to me dated October 11, 2012
confirm his awareness and approval of the transaction).
Only after receipt of Mr. Wards approval, was the request for payment authorized by
me.
It should be noted that the AIS Contract was a cost plus expenses contract. NIBs
Management, led directly by Raymond Wells, not myself, had the fiduciary responsibility to
control costs and secondly, the legal responsibility to secure housing for the AIS personnel
whom Mr. Wells had approved accommodations for at the Hilton Hotel, also without my direct
approval. Moreover, at their request, and reportedly for convenience purposes, they requested
that they immediately be relocated from the Hilton Hotel to apartment style housing. Using
6
the authority delegated to him as the Project Manager and Sponsor for the National Prescription
Drug Plan, he approved this project cost as a part of his budget that he fully and independently
controlled.
Although Grant Thornton has stated in its Forensic Report that they did not find where Raymond
Wells had the authority to control costs for this project, the excerpt from the AIS contract below
explains Mr. Wells Delegated Authority.
Section 3.
(a) NIB shall provide airfare, accommodation, and US$75.00 PER DIEM for out of
pocket expenses, for all of AISs technical personnel, during the implementation
phase and thereafter, whenever NIB requests such services.
The question of authority to enter the contract was based on the full amount paid over the entire
lease period, and although this fell into the entire project budget approved by the Board of
Directors and managed by Mr. Wells, it excludes the fact that his analysis and decision inputs
were based on the monthly cost viz a viz a similar cost in the hotel for all potential occupants.
It should be noted that NIBs Accounts Department led by Sonia Gill acted independently in
approving rental payments for this unit and at no time at the execution of the initial payment
approval by myself or directly to me afterwards, is there any documented communication from
Mrs. Gill to me expressing any concern with regards to this apartment. All communication was
directed by her to Mr. Raymond Wells, the IT Executive who executed the lease and managed
the entire process. Additionally Mrs. Gill confirmed to Grant Thornton that there was no policy
to govern this transaction, and if this is the case, it is not clear what policy I or Raymond Wells
violated. Grant Thornton appears to be stretching to arrive at a conclusion that has been
elucidated by me in my October 9, 2012 communication to Mr. Gregory Moss.
The comparisons with the Delaporte Apartment indicate a 48% differential in cost. This is not a
true comparison as it ignores the requirements of NIB in respect of the apartment, the advantages
of the Sandyport Apartment, and the inputs Ms. Gail Carey used in declaring to the Board of
Directors that in her view, the Sandyport apartment was superior in many ways to the Delaporte
apartment. In reality, both were not comparable, as the Delaporte apartment consisted of 2
bedrooms and 1 bathrooms whereas the Sandyport apartment had 3 bedrooms and 3
bathrooms which would accommodate a mix of male and female occupants more comfortably
and privately. Moreover, this input by Grant Thornton ignores the fact that neither of the units
appear to have been independently inspected by their firm to confirm that Ms. Careys decision
inputs were valid.
The written statements made by realtors Mr. Pat Strachan and Mr. William Wong are
contradictory (See appendices 1.44 and 1.45); however, Grant Thornton summarizes in its report
that both realtors arrived at the same conclusion with regards the Sandyport Apartment costs.
Specifically, Mr. Strachan stated the apartment rate was not within industry standards while Mr.
Wong contends the cost was a reasonable one. In fact, Mr. Wong stated in his January 21, 2013
7
letter that the cost of electricity was a fair amount because the chance that the tenants will
constantly run central air, the electricity bill could be much higher. It is curious that this
information was misrepresented in the Grant Thornton report.
It is disingenuous and misleading for Grant Thornton to not consider and include as
corroborating and validating points the disclosure made in Patrick Wards Grant Thornton
interview and corroborating letter that he approved the Sandyport lease and the business reasons
he used as inputs in his decision making process.
It should have been considered that once Patrick Ward, acting as Chairman of the National
Insurance Board, approved the lease of the apartment, it was his responsibility to advise the
Board of this approval, if he considered it was required, and not me. This is reiterated in
Cadburys report of best practices in Corporate Governance. It is the Chairmans responsibility
to ensure that all relevant issues are on the agenda.
I attest that I approved only the processing of the payment, after I had received the approval of
the lease executed by Raymond Wells from Mr. Patrick Ward. It was inappropriate for Grant
Thornton to state that Patrick Wards corroborating letter was an attempt to create a paper trail
rather than to confirm in writing what he conveyed personally to the firm during his interview
that he as Chairman of the Board of Directors ultimately approved the apartment lease.
I approved the processing of the payment after I had made the full disclosure to Mr. Ward, in the
presence of Mr. Wells, and did not participate in the decision making process in regards to the
selection of the Sandyport Apartment lease with my brothers wholly owned company, Jes-El-
Car Ltd.
Grant Thornton advises at point 1.a in its communication to Marco Rolle dated March 22, 2013,
that I approved the lease of the Sandyport apartment on February 20, 2010, without the Board
of Directors approval. Please provide the evidence used to support firstly, the date of such
approval and the allegation that I approved the lease. I again affirm that the lease was approved
by Raymond Wells and executed by him. The payment was approved by me after I secured the
approval of Mr. Patrick Ward, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, in the presence of
Raymond Wells due to the potential conflict.
With regards the allegation of non-disclosure in the Related Party/Conflict of Interest Disclosure
form of my appointment as a Director and Vice President of Jes-El-Car Ltd, at the time the lease
was executed, at the time NIB Disclosure Forms were executed, and at the time of my interview
with the Board of Directors, I was not aware that I had been appointed by my brother, Godwin
Cargill, as a Director and Officer of his company. In fact, the legal test of a conflict of interest,
and NIBs policy is whether or not I stood to gain any financial benefit as a result of the conflict
and in this instance, I did not. My brothers confirmatory sworn affidavit, that was prepared by
Davis and Co, the registered office for his company, attests to this. It should be noted that Grant
Thornton excluded from their Forensic Report the fact that Paul Andy Gomez was formally
advised by Davis & Co.s Managing Partner, Phillip McKenzie, on January 24, 2013, i.e., at least
8
three months prior to finalization of the Forensic Report that Godwin Cargill owned 100% of the
shares of Jes-El-Car Ltd. The corroborating statement from Davis & Co that is now attached to
this communication labeled as Exhibit # 3. An excerpt from the Corporate file of Jes-El-Car Ltd
maintained by Davis and Co, together with the corroborating statement from Phillip McKenzie
confirm that I have never attended any corporate meetings or signed any company documents,
and that I do not own any shares in the company, and further, that I was not present when the
company was incorporated and there is no evidence in their file that I have participated in any
way, either directly or indirectly in the affairs of the company (Exhibit #3).
Although Grant Thornton was aware of this exculpatory information and yet excluded it from the
Forensic Report, the firm did include in its Forensic Report who the shareholders and beneficial
owners of the company 700 Islands and Kenuths Electric Company Ltd were, thereby
demonstrating their awareness of the importance ownership is in the test of a Conflict of Interest.
I feel that as a result of these apparently deliberate actions, acted in a prejudicial manner in
arriving at a conclusion of the facts presented with regards this allegation.
Grant Thornton has also ignored in its Forensic Report that the conflict of interest with regards to
the Sandyport apartment was disclosed by Gail Carey in her memo to Raymond Wells dated
March 1, 2010. This was in accordance with Point 6. Conflicts of Interest policy statement
page 4. This is very concerning.
With regards point 1f), and 2d) Grant Thornton should produce the NIB disclosure forms for the
three years referenced, December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2012. Further, according to
International Accounting Standards, the cost of the rental expense viz a viz the total expenses of
$160 million on average during this period would not be deemed material and therefore not
included in the Financial Statements in any form of disclosure.
In fact, PricewaterhouseCoopers explained in its Related Party Clarification note to me with
regards the disclosures made by Patrick Ward re: the Bahamas First matter- NIBs Property
Insurance Expense of $1.5 million annually, It is important to draw distinction between
financial reporting requirements and best practices management information required by those
charged with governance. Transactions with entities influenced by key management personnel,
including directors, is of significance to those charged with governance and a process has been
established to ensure that such information is brought to the attention of those charged with
governance. Financial reporting requires disclosure regarding those transactions, which would
influence the decision of users of the financial statements, and hence as set out in IAS 24,
consideration should be given to significance (the transactions referred) and to whether the
transaction significantly impacts the financial performance or position of the Fund, whether or
not done at arms length (we observe that there was a tendering process carried out for general
insurance contracts in accordance with NIBs tendering policy, whether or not outside ordinary
course of business (property/casualty insurance is required given the extent of properties owned
and managed), and reporting lines for approval (significant contracts required Board Approval,
9
which was given). None of the aforementioned factors were present and hence do not require
greater disclosure than provided by management in the consolidated statements.
The materiality of the Sandyport monthly contract is insignificant in respect of NIBs financial
statements as a whole and the corresponding disclosure requirements. Had the additional
disclosure been made, it was immaterial to the Financial Statements. Moreover, a disclosure on
my appointment by my brother to his holding (not operating company) could not have been
made as I was not aware of this appointment at the time of the execution of the lease.
With regards point 1g), the minutes referenced, October 28, 2010, re: NIB Cases for Prosecution,
this was after the apartment had been rented. Further, Mr. Gregory Collie who managed
compliance on behalf of the Board will confirm that his account was entirely in good standing at
the time of the rental in 2010 and 2011 and the inclusion in the Prosecution Report was an error
by NIB. Moreover, it was not my responsibility to check or confirm that National Insurance
arrears do not exist and in this case, this requirement should have been met by Gail Carey and/or
Raymond Wells.
In summary, this forensic report does not support the serious allegations made in Gregory Moss
November 8 letter, specifically: dereliction of duty; gross misconduct; insubordination; gross
negligence and conflict of interest. There are absolutely no facts to support any of these
allegations and leads to the conclusion that this allegation has no basis and is not supported with
the facts discovered throughout the forensic investigation conducted.
Enclosures 1 - 8:
1. Davis & Co Letter to Paul Andy Gomez, Managing Partner, Grant Thornton, dated
January 24, 2013.
2. Davis & Co supplemental letter to Sears and Co dated May 10, 2013 and corroborating
Affidavit of Godwin Cargill.
3. Declarations of Beneficial Interest in Jes El Car Ltd by Tootsie V. Hunter and Debbie
Michelle Gilbert.
4. Resolution of the First Meeting of Jes-El-Car Ltd dated June 7, 2000 noting that
Algernon Cargill was not present. All subsequent resolutions confirm that Algernon
Cargill was not present at any of these meetings.
5. Resolutions of Borrowing Authority by Jes-El-Car Ltd Algernon Cargill was not named
in any of these nor was he present at the time these resolutions were executed.
6. Related Party Explanation by Gowon Bowe, Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers
7. Letter of October 9, 2012 by me to Mr. Gregory Moss on the Jes-El-Car Ltd. matter.
8. Letter of October 11, 2012 by Patrick Ward to me on the Jes-El-Car Ltd. matter
10
Allegation # 2 The Bahamas First Insurance Issue
Grant Thorntons findings do not relate to my actions and my Affidavit filed in the Supreme
Court actually has very serious allegations on the conduct of Gregory Moss with regards this
matter.
11
Allegation # 3 The Kenuths Electric Issue
Gregory Moss reported and Grant Thornton substantiated that the records of NIB confirm that
the sum of $2,093,619.82 was paid directly to Kenuths Electric for work performed on NIB
properties during the period 9
th
December 2008 to 29
th
August 2012. According to my
preliminary analysis, this amount was $1,062,360 and according to the Grant Thornton Forensic
Report the Financial Controller also advised on page 80 at point 3.2 (b), that the amount of
$2,093,619.82 does not agree with NIBs records. Further, Grant Thornton should deduct the
approved payments to Mr. Knowles that NIB made on behalf of General Contractors, that were
approved by the Project consultants and contractors, and recorded as a project disbursement, and
the amounts for direct NIB contracts and/or the Ministry of Tourism project; thereafter, the
analysis would then confirm that the amount paid to Mr. Knowles for the period 2008-2012
would be in the range of $500,000. Moreover, I am advised that the rates charged by this
company are within market rates and secondly, are less than the rates that NIB is currently being
billed for electrical and air-conditioning services. Current invoices reflect a fixed rate of $125
per hour and according to Grant Thorntons Forensic Report, Kenuths Electric rates were
$33.03 to $105.05 per hour. Moreover, further analysis by Grant Thornton would have
confirmed that these rates were not per employee as is the current case at NIB, but were for a
minimum of 2 employees dispatched to NIB by the company.
With regard to item 3.2(d) finding that the completion of the installation of parking lot lights at
the Poinciana Hill Building is the only contract found where Kenuths Electric was engaged by
NIB is inaccurate. This work was approved by the Ministry of Health through a tender process
and Purchase Orders (a contract) were issued to Mr. Knowles for several other works at NIB that
were recommended by NIB personnel other than me. For example, the I.T. Cabling to replace
the wireless financial network was approved by the I.T. Department, the Electrical Upgrade to
NIBs Head Office to facilitate the renovations to the property were approved by the Buildings
Division and any interview of these Department heads would confirm this. Notwithstanding, it
should be noted that the quantum of work at NIB Head Quarters would appear significant as the
premises were upgraded department by department over the past four (4) years to avoid any
interruption to key services and secondly, the IT infrastructure had to be replaced as transactions
in the wireless environment were dropping and financial records were being compromised. In
summary, Grant Thornton, who should be aware that a Purchase Order is a binding agreement,
had sight of the Purchase Orders for the IT Networking, the installation of the NIB HQ
Lightening Arrestor, the details of the direct disbursements made to Kenuths Electric on behalf
of contractors, and the details of all project works, including the Ministry of Tourism project, and
chose to not include these important facts in its Forensic Report analysis of payments made to
Kenuths Electric. With regards to Grant Thorntons Findings on page 81 at point 3.3, and the
misrepresentations by Gregory Moss in his November 8 letter to Shane Gibson, the following
clarifying points that Grant Thornton had reviewed and again chose to not clarify in its Forensic
12
Report should be noted:
a. $22,225 - The 50% payment is due in part to the approved purchase order
PO#PON2M0900080 for the installation of Network cabling for the IT Department
which is supported by an in house requisition form. In other words, a binding contract
was evident.
b. $5,006.76 - The purported finding that the new lightening protection system as installed
was completed without the involvement of a Consulting Engineer is inaccurate. Kenuths
Electric would have been required to consult a Certified UL Consultant and or vendor in
order to provide the required lightening protection equipment (grounding copper cables
only from the pole to designated areas). Please also note that to date there are no local
person and or vendor that meets this criteria and the company consulted their USA
supplier for guidance and technical advice and guidance.
c. $10,305.34 - The variation in labor rates is a direct result to the level of
Technician/skilled company representative that completed the work. Industry standard
rates are normally between $30 - $125 depending upon the level of the vendor
representative completing the tasks on behalf of the engaged company. Further, NIB is
currently paying rates of $125 per hour for electrical and air-condition works and is
shockingly now using the same electrical contractors, the same air-condition contractors,
and the same engineers for works on NIBs properties, and in most cases, without any
tender documents at the time the work is awarded.
d. This finding is incorrect, misleading, and appears deliberately false as Grant Thornton
had unrestricted access to all of NIBs records. The cost of $8,800.00 was related to the
installation of the lightning arrestor pole at the Head Quarters Building which included
the use of crane services to install the 45ft tapered pole that was designed by a USA
Vendor at the same standard of the Lightening Arrestor at the Miami International
Airport.
e. The reported finding that $14,958.75 was expended for specialty crane services is false.
The amount of $14,958.75 was the balance payment due to Kenuths Electric for the
procurement and installation of the lightening arrestor rod. This project was awarded to
Kenuths Electric following the submission of bids from at least three (3) vendors
including Kenuths Electric.
f. Again, the statement the amount totaling $11,119.34 was the culmination of ONLY three
(3) invoices is false and inaccurate. The payment of $11,119.34 included payments of six
(6) invoices to complete networking infrastructure in various buildings and departments.
With regard to labour rates please refer to explanation in item (d).
g. The hours worked noted was for the disconnection of data lines, whips, and feeders from
the existing cubicles and to relocate and reconnect the same in newly installed pre-
owned cubicle sections not having the service connections (data and power) properly
13
connected to the units but rather in boxes located in the shipping trailer. Kenuths Electric
was then required to retrieve these items and accurately match the same to the cubicle
sections that were installed by another vendor. Additionally in some cases new
additional power and or data lines were required to be installed within the office areas to
accommodate the cubicle sections. The work was completed in the Central Benefits
Department and Inspectorate Department and Kenuths Electric was authorized to
proceed by the I.T. and Buildings department. Again all works are related to the
installation of networking cabling infrastructure.
With regards the findings that start of page 84 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report, the
following should be noted.
3.3 (b) (i) The labor rates within the invoices are consistent with industry standard labor
rates depending upon the level of the technician/workman completing the relevant task.
As noted above, NIB is now paying without question labour rates of $125 for electrical
and air-conditioning work and in most cases, these works are not being tendered at the
time of their award.
For point 3.3 (b) (ii) It is highly unlikely that the Accounting Department of NIB would
honor payment for services without the submission of an invoice from a vendor. This
statement is misleading and not consistent with the Accounting practices of NIB and
reflects on yet another attempt by Grant Thornton to suggest wrongdoing on the part of
NIB. More due diligence is required by Grant Thornton and the statement is an attempt
to cast further aspersions on my character and reputation, particularly as Grant Thornton
is fully or should be fully aware of the independent process employed by the Accounting
Department in approving any invoice for payment.
For point 3.3(b) (iii) The statement that Graphite Engineering did not validate the
corrective works at the Ministry of Tourism project is wholly inaccurate and borders on
being reckless, and again appears to be deliberately misleading. In fact, Grant Thornton
and Shane Gibson were purposely advised by NIBs Buildings Department of the process
followed with regards the Ministry of Tourism corrective works performed by another
electrical contractor. Kenuths Electric was required to remediate this work that was
previously approved and certified for payment by the Ministry of Works during the
original construction of the complex in 2005-2007.
NIB contracted Graphite Engineering Ltd, principal Sonia Brown, to identify the
remedial work required in order that the final electrical inspection could be provided by
the Ministry of Works. This is very similar to the current situation wherein NIB has
contracted Henry Storr Electric on the same contractual basis that Kenuths Electric was
contracted. Graphite Engineering is a very reputable MEP Engineering firm and is
currently completing additional Engineering Services for two of NIBs major projects,
the mini hospitals in Abaco and Exuma. Graphite Engineerings reports are available in
14
NIBs file and will confirm their analysis of the remedial work required and certification
of all works completed, according to the Bahamas Electrical Code, prior to advancing to
NIB for payment.
In addition to Graphite Engineerings certification, NIB contracted Construction Cost
Engineering Services Ltd to certify the cost of every payment for work completed after
Graphite Engineering had confirmed that the work had been completed to their
specifications and satisfaction. All invoices were certified by Quantity Surveyors,
Construction Cost Engineering prior to any recommendation for payment by NIBs
building department, not by me.
Grant Thornton had sight of this information, all certifications by Graphite and
Construction Cost and elected to not include it in its summary report. This is very
curious and shocking.
Further, under Graphite supervision and direction, the estimation of 3 4 weeks to
complete the remedial works was consistent with their initial scope as noted within their
report which also indicated that their recommendations were solely based upon what
should have been seen and not any defects that were hidden. Moreover, The Bahamas
Building Code requires that all exit points be adequately designated by illuminated exit
signs in corridors of commercial buildings. At the time, while Kenuths Electric was
completing the electrical remedial works, it was advised to them by the consultants that
there were no exit signs installed, and this is a key requirement for the final inspection
certificate from the Ministry of Works. Additionally, the cost of electric illuminated exit
signs ranges from $2,500 - $3,500 per sign excluding installation. Further, the findings
by Grant Thornton that the Kenuths Electric billed $30,000 for the supply or emergency
lights, ballasts, exit lights, signs and bulbs shows a lack of thoroughness and
completeness in the firms analysis.
For point 3.3(b)(iv) It is also shocking that Grant Thornton has reported that NO
contracts regarding the SRC Project were available for their review, and if this is indeed
the case, how could the firm provide any findings of fact with regards the erroneous and
misleading findings in this regard. For this reason, any statement or finding provided
regarding this project within their report is considered highly speculative and should be
excluded until the firm has reviewed the contracts that are still resident within NIB.
Likewise, the statement that there was no practical explanation of how CTs on a large
electrical system upgrade could have been overlooked is a good question and should have
been answered readily by Grant Thorntons own Consultant Applied Consultants &
Engineers (Dennis Nairn of ACE). This company, ACE /Dennis Nairn, whom Grant
Thornton has reportedly contracted as an expert in the field of electrical works, was the
supplier of Kenuths Electric for the large electrical system at the Sandilands project
and it was this company, not Kenuths Electric, who despite being paid in full by
Kenuths Electric for the supply of the Square D system including CTs, had shockingly
15
not included it in its order and supply and subsequently delayed the project by several
weeks. Dennis Nairn of ACE was required to provide the required CTs for this project
and instead only provided the CT Cabinet although the CTs were in fact noted on the
design documents. It baffles the mind that ACE is now acting as an agent of Grant
Thornton when they were the main supplier of Kenuths Electric for this project and
didnt perform then. Unbelievable!
Findings at point 3.5
1. The direct payment to Kenuths Electric for work completed on the SRC Project was
authorized by the Contractor and Consultants attached to the formal payment request.
The subsequent allegations being made by Shane Gibson in the media with regards the
Exuma Project are deliberately false and reckless. There is absolutely no evidence to
confirm his allegations that I telephoned the contractor for the Exuma Mini Hospital and
demanded that he award the contract to Kenuths Electric. Mr. Gibson should review the
information in NIBs files, including the Board of Directors minutes and the
memorandums of the Director to determine the determination of the Board of Directors,
and not assert opinions that can be easily verified to be inaccurate and baseless. The facts
are:
a. NIB Board of Directors agreed to standardize all sub-contractors for the
Abaco and Exuma Hospital, i.e., Electrical, Plumbing, and Air-condition.
b. The Architect, MEP Engineers, and Civil and Structural Engineers were also
standardized as the projects were a duplicate of each other and the Board
considered that for greater efficiency, and because of ongoing experiences
with the Sandilands and Ministry of Tourism projects, that they wanted a
problem free job and decided to standardize the entire team with the exception
of the General Contractor.
c. The electrical contractor nominated by the contractor did not have any
experience with any medical facilities, or similar facilities, did not have an
independent operation/business, and based on Osbourne Moxeys analysis, did
not appear to have the experience to complete this job please also note NIB
ongoing experience with the Ministry of Tourism building that has had
several electrical fires and this slipshod electrical work was top of mind by
NIBs Project Manager when he and the project consultants recommended
that we standardize all sub-contractors.
d. Osbourne Moxey and I together spoke with the General Contractor and
outlined the Boards requirements and advised the contractor that our job was
to advise what the Board had recommended and at the end of the day, he was
free to make any decision that he wanted. An interview with the General
Contractor could only confirm this statement and nothing else. At this point, I
16
will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media
by Minister Gibson, particularly as these have not been included in the Grant
Thornton report, notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have.
It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntons several interviews with NIBs Project Manager,
and NIBs Property Managers, there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way
that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuths Electric exclusively. In fact, it is Osbourne
Moxeys professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several
occasions to NIBs Board of Directors, Minister Gibson, and other NIB employees that it was
preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board
complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems, but compromising of
our already delicate electrical infrastructure. I am therefore confused that the works performed
by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my
behalf, particularly, I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or
mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board.
17
Allegation # 4 The Vitech Contract Issue
Grant Thorntons findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the
Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to
have been addressed in the report provided to me.
18
Allegation # 5 The Suspension of Sean Moss
Before responding to this allegation, the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Moss wife) should
be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report. A
copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows:
Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss
By J ohn Swain & Kendrick Christie
ESM: He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnt made aware of the petition and the
contents until February of 2012. He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010.
When he left the house and tried to come back, I refused to let him come back. The process was
very difficult. I never imagined that he would do this. Im not here to tear down my husband. I
dont like what he did and he knows its a lie. I just want the truth to be out. Mr. Cargill is my
friend I dont want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did
something wrong. I just want the truth to be said.
J S: When did you first meet Mr. Cargill?
ESM: Met Mr. Cargill through the BSF. I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at
the time) as an official (14 years ago). Mr. Cargill ran for presidency and won. I became the
president of Seabees. I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a
letter for her to get her scholarship). He would also order swimsuits through his US address for
the swim club.
KC: Did you know about the letter? Our main concern is to establish your position on the
allegations placed towards him
ESM: There was no affair. He was and always will be my friend.
KC: How long were you married?
ESM: Dated for 2 years before getting married. Married for 14 years
KC: What was your husbands involvement in the swim meets?
ESM: None existent. My daughter went to 6 Cariftas and he only came to one.
Background Story: Her husband asked her to call Mr. Cargill to help find him a job. Mr.
Cargill helped and got him a job at NI B as a consultant. She couldnt believe her husband
would do thatHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue]. One
night he didnt come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer. She also tried
calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry). He came back home on Saturday and
did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch. Because of this he called the
police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house. She put
it back in the house and then he left again She didnt know of the affair until Mr. Pyform
19
(the girlfriends husband) called her and told her what was going on. She didnt say anything
right away to her husband.when the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled
when she brought the conversation up. (This happened from the previous year 09) She went
on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls
(house and cell) but she didnt put it together. She thought the phone calls were from church
members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs). [J an] Calls
became more frequent. He slept in the childrens room because of his leg (the bed in their
room was too high). One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the
phoneshe thought it was a friends but didnt put it together at the time that he was being
unfaithful. When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the
money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean. She confronted him because everything
stopped. He didnt help paying with the children and didnt help he pay the bills.
KC: Do you know where he stayed?
ESM: I think in our daughters house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age.
One day when he took the kids, she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is
when she really found out about the girlfriend, because he had her watch the kids while he
was at work. She(Thursday evening) called him at NI B and asked where the children were
but he did not answer her calls. She then called Mr. Cargill so that he could ask the husband
to come downstairs because she could get through to him. Mr. Cargill asked him to go
downstairs. He came down and they got into a big argument. She thinks Mr. Cargill called his
boss because they were on NI B property. Mrs. King called her to come in to the board room to
explain the situation. He said the kids were with his aunt. Mrs. King didnt want to get into it.
Mr. Wells was there. Mr. Cargill said that NI B would assist with any matters dealing with the
marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc.). She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt
said the kids were not there. So she called her husband to find out where the children were but
he did not answer. She called Mr. Cargill again to try to help her reach him. Mr. Cargill
explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehe checked and
came back and said that the children were there now. ESM says that the girlfriend was
dropping the kids off but couldnt find the house. This was why they were not there.
KC: [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal
of what actually happened?
ESM: Thats not true because this was after 5pm almost 6.He was driving someone elses car
who he said was his bossHe then called saying that his car got burned down. She knew that
he was driving THEI R car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring
to.
KC: Says two vehicles were burnedis that true?
ESM: No it was one vehicle. The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned
down.
20
J S: Did you go to the counseling?
ESM: I went to one then he went to one.but we didnt go together.
J S: Did Mr. Cargill ever call you at night?
ESM: Never. I give you permission to check my phone records. He only called for issues
pertaining to the swim club.
KC: When did Mr. Cargills name come in?
ESM: Not until last year.never before.
J S: Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr. Cargill was better than him in
computers?
ESM: I never said that. I dont know where that came from.
KC: Did your husband ever come back home?
The husband couldnt travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids
on Christmas, and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance
number showed up on the caller I D. The husband was also missing from work for a few days
and didnt call into NIB. She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her
that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman. Cargill called and asked
ESM where her husband was because he didnt come into work. Eventually they found out
that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York. (Dec 2010) I n J an 2011 the husband
came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was
bitter but by her reaction she said no.
KC: We sympathize with you. Please, take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010.
ESM: I had no idea until 2012. Nothing was sent to me. Ask Sharon Wilson.
KC: How could you file a petition and the other person not know? Was it shut down, why didnt
you know?
ESM: I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn
said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it. She didnt ask about
it.
From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered. He registered the
kids into public schools without letting her know. She found out two days before school
opened. Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee. On the file at one of the
kids school, she found a copy of the husbands lease agreement. He apparently moved the
woman out of the daughters house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates. She thinks the
womans husband was going to kill her husband. The man called and told her that he was
going to kill her husband. He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and
tape recording of them on the phone.
21
KC: Are you aware that your husbands girlfriend and her husband got a divorce?
ESM: Yes, I know.
KC: [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr. Cargills name in the petition?
ESM: Yes. I asked Ms. Anderson to email it to me. When I read it and saw his name, I had to let
him know because hes my friend and I didnt want him to think that I was a part of it. I think my
husband did it because he didnt have anything else on me.
KC: What was Mr. Cargills response?
ESM: When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnt like that it wasnt like that. He
admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again. I dont know what happened at NIB, but at
the end of the day. I moved on from that.
KC: Did you meet with Mr. Cargill to tell him about it?
ESM: No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him.
ESM: If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts
because Mr. Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible.
KC: Did you find out from Mr. Cargill what happened? Are you aware that your husband struck
out any reference of Mr. Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr. Cargill was not
having an affair with his wife.
ESM: No, I found out on Bahamas Press. Mr. Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it
was husband trying to get out of the marriage.
Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it
a lie to use against her in court. Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school
to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her.
One day, Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money. She went to the house and
found out that the lady was living in their daughters house with him at the time. He had
recorded their conversation on the NI B phone. She emailed Mrs. King (2012) explaining that
he was recording her on NIBs phone lines and explained the situation. Mrs. King didnt
really respond or replied saying that it was noted.
KC: Does he contribute now?
ESM: He started paying $500 from Aug.
KC: Its your belief that he is still living with the woman?
ESM: Hes living with her. He rents a townhouse (July 7, 2011) Mrs. Wilson has a copy of the
lease agreement.
KC: Other than assumptions how do you know?
22
ESM: The kids visited him periodically, and told me. When he moved out he didnt tell us where
he lived.
KC: Where is the townhouse located?
ESM: Leeward estates. Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweethearts name.
KC: Have you spoken to Mr. Cargill since?
ESM: Yes, he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend. I feel bad because he tried to
help my family.
KC: [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband
getting the job?
ESM: I confirm. It was Mr. Cargill looking out for us. A lot of people had something to say
about Mr. Cargill giving him a job.
KC: A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr. Cargill?
ESM: Yes and a lot dont believe. Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like
shes having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him? It just doesnt make sense.
KC: Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband?
ESM: I think so, because he walked away from God.
The following points extracted from Mrs. Moss Grant Thornton interview that were curiously
excluded from the Forensic Report and should be noted:
Mrs. Moss responds on page 4 as follows:
1. ESM: When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnt like that it wasnt
like that. He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again. I dont know
what happened at NI B, but at the end of the day. I moved on from that.
In other words, she confirms that her husband confessed to lying. This is particularly
important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent
feedback from NIBs Management about his character, and the feedback of the
Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr. Timothy Barrett.
2. Mrs. Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant
Thornton:
KC: Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband? ESM: I think
so, because he walked away from God.
In addition to Mrs. Moss concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues, and the
subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr. Timothy Barrett, NIBs Management
23
(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological
issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive
Committee Meetings. As a result, Mrs. King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr.
Moss by Dr. Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave
that Mr. Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written
report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced.
With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB
to:
1. Victimize a member of the NIB Staff
2. To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr. Algernon Cargill
3. To suspend that member of staff from NIBs employ
4. To use NIBs funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member
of staff that Mr. Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his
wife.
I respond as follows:
1. This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the
matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any
input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss, his
employment, or managements treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his
Affidavit. Mrs. Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of
Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBs file unequivocally
confirms this.
2. Mr. Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely, in the presence of Richenda
King and Raymond Wells, and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells, Richenda
King, Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong, that he never believed the statements
he included in his divorce petition, and at the time he signed it, knew that these
statements were false. Darrin Culmer assisted Mr. Moss with the preparation of the
letter and Mr. Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter. I never
insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr. Moss and should have
reflected how he felt.
3. Mr. Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false
allegations against me and independently on February 28, 2012, and with his
attorneys assistance and counsel, approximately one month after he requested
vacation leave, voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that
was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29, 2012, confirming that the original
allegations in his divorce petition were false.
24
4. Mr. Moss suspension was managed exclusively by NIBs Human Resources
department and I had no role or input in the process. Mrs. Richenda King has
confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with
Grant Thornton. Moreover, every leave request was requested by Mr. Moss directly
to his supervisor, Raymond Wells, and there has been no contact or discussion
between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation,
unpaid, and casual leave.
5. It is completely false that NIBs funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against
an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife. The
report accurately states, and NIBs file confirms, that external counsel was engaged
and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr.
Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing
to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition.
6. At the time of Mr. Moss suspicions as documented in his divorce petition, i.e., in
2007, and notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Moss has confirmed that he lied in his
petition, I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The
Bahamas. I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children.
I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of
Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board.
7. Mr. Moss had executed his petition on November 26, 2010; it was not stamped by the
Supreme Court until December 4, 2010, and not made known to me until February 1,
2012. During this period, Mr. Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and
said nothing to any employee of NIB.
8. Mr. Moss position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have
impeccable integrity and trust and his manager, Raymond Wells, refused to allow him
to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally
stable, and secondly, the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken
as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr. Moss. Again, there was no
involvement on my part with this decision and in fact, I was not consulted by the
Human Resources Department and/or Mr. Raymond Wells when they met with Sean
Moss to discuss his matters. My last direct communication with Mr. Moss was in
February 2012 when he admitted to NIBs management that he lied in his sworn
divorce petition and would remedy it.
9. Leading up to the incident on NIB Property, Mrs. Moss car that was in the
possession of Mr. Moss was burnt to the ground. Subsequent to the NIB incident,
Dave Forbes, an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr. Moss, was
also burnt to the ground, and there was a third incident on NIB property when a
another car in Mr. Moss possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to
be chased from the NIB property by NIB Security.
25
10. At the time of the NIB incident between Mr. and Mrs. Moss, it was not Mr. Cargills
decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that
occurred on NIBs property, and in the presence of employees and customers. It was
the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells, Algernon Cargill and Richenda King,
to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs. Moss to the Directors Office to not only
dissolve the matter, and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB
paid counseling) to this fractured family.
11. Mr. Moss Manager, Mr. Raymond Wells, recommended to the Human Resources
department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or
input from me.
12. I played no role in the management of Sean Moss matter and the Human Resources
department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again.
13. Allegation 5.6 in the Forensic Report should presumably read January 2012 and not
January 2011.
14. Sean Moss statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I
requested he take leave without pay is false. As stated, it was my understanding that
he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time, did he have any discussion
with me, in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave
without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his
leave, insisted that another employee be present).
15. Darrin Culmer, NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently
confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure
from me for an apology or for Mr. Moss to take any leave. No corroborating
conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full
knowledge of this important fact.
26
Allegation # 6 The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue
Before proceeding to respond to this allegation, the following should be noted:
1. This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey, NIBs Project Manager
and not by me.
2. Mr. Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or
any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone, given my
reservations and the public statements made by Ms. Theresa Burrows at the time, that
he was not trustworthy.
3. Mr. Neymour recommended his cousin, Lewis Construction as the contractor for this
project. At the time, and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey, it was
confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymours cousin, that
Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board, and
further, its bid was amongst the highest.
4. Mr. Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr. Neymour
as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr. Dave Neymour
had requested that they pad invoices, pressured their employees for money, requested
direct personal payments from the companies, or pay him for advancing their
projects. No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated
that they will.
i. Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey.
ii. Fresh Carpet and Dyeing, Myles La-Roda T/A made complaints to Osbourne
Moxey and me about Mr. Neymours actions towards his employees.
iii. Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr.
Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made
to Mr. Neymour from his company were not repaid.
iv. S& G Construction Company, owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome
Gomez. Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V.
Theresa Burrows.
v. Mr. Kevin Christie, brother of Prime Minister Perry G. Christie. Complaints
made by Sidney Cargill to me.
5. As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time, and NIB could not prove
the allegations, a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V. Theresa
Burrows to not continue Mr. Neymours contract after expiry as there were too many
complaints from contractors that he had requested payments from their employees
or directly from them. Ms. Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human
Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012.
27
6. Mr. Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented
disclosures to him by me, based on his own independent professional analysis, he
recommended H.E.W Construction Company, not me. I understand he recommended
H.E.W. Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory
work on the Fresh Creek Clinic, its price was the most competitive, and that his
recommendation was supported by his technical advisors, including the Project
Quantity Surveyor. NIBs file clearly shows that the recommendation to use H.E.W
Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me.
7. No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr.
Osbourne Moxeys documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his
recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me.
8. With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour, the following should be
noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above.
i. Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms. Theresa Burrows about Mr.
Neymours attempted extortion of funds from S&G Construction Company, a
decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate
Mr. Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my
affidavit of with regards point 4iv).
ii. With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr. Neymour collaborated with
Mr. Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the
understanding that Mr. Neymour would be paid a referral. After seeking
technical advice, this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded
with. Sidney Cargill, my brother, spoke with Mr. Christie and confirmed that
Mr. Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him. He reported this to me
iii. I relayed this concern to Mr. Shane Gibson, Ms. Theresa Burrows and to Mr.
Osbourne Moxey. Mr. Gibson telephoned Mr. Christie in the presence of Ms.
Burrows, Mr. Moxey and me, and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr.
Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother, Mr.
Sidney Cargill, and Mr. Kevin Christie, and that Mr. Neymours had attempted
to extort money from him.
As Mr. Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr.
Neymours conduct, , that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project, and I am
advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him, he did not support any
recommendation from Mr. Neymour, and in this case, he was correct as Mr. Neymour did not
disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin.
With regards the other elements re: management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project,
this project was managed exclusively by Mr. Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in
any decisions and/or recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the
28
construction decisions/recommendations. In fact, NIBs files will confirm that Mr. Moxey also
secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor, Veritas Ltd.
Mr. Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms. Theresa Burrows has
stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr. Neymour, and
previously to Richenda King, Osbourne Moxey, and me, and several of the Executive Committee
members. The renewal of Mr. Neymours contract was recommended and approved by Shane
Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB. I will
not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr. Neymour based on the information above.
29
Allegation #7 The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue
Grant Thorntons findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card. It also does not
reflect that Mr. Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card, that the
Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance, and further, that NIB
Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed, complete, and comprehensive review of
every transaction and found no irregularities.
30
Allegation #8 The 700 Islands Ltd. Procurement Issue
Grant Thorntons findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr.
Gregory Moss related statements were false and baseless. I do not take any issue with Grant
Thorntons findings in this area at this time.
31
Allegation #9 Delegated Management Functions
Grant Thorntons findings are matters of fact and present no issue. I do not take any issue with
Grant Thorntons findings in this area at this time.
32
Allegation #10 The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project
It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even
NIBs Tender process for building projects. In this regard, the following background and
sequence of events should be noted:
1. NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects. This is publicly
completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the
qualifying guidelines included in NIBs notice are invited to collect and submit a
prequalification form.
2. When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB, they are provided to NIBs
external consultants, Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates
in this instance, for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required
standards. It was disclosed to Mr. Moxey and me by the consultants, who were fully
aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin, that Telco Enterprises Ltd/Floyd Wilmott
had completed a prequalification form. I also publicly declared to the consultants
and Osbourne Moxey that Mr. Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this
process and any discussion with them would confirm this..
3. After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises
included as one of the prequalified contractors, by the consultants, NIB provided this
public information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with
the direct knowledge that one of the bidders, Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was
the Directors Cousin.
4. The Ministry of Finance, not NIB, The Board of Directors or even the Director
approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd.
5. After the bidders were prequalified, and had collected the tender documents, the
recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBs External
Consultants together with NIBs Project Manager, and their recommendation was
submitted to the Board of Directors for approval. At this point, there was no other
opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors, as they were not involved in the
process until the Board meeting, that Floyd Wilmott, the principal of Telco, was my
cousin. Moreover, Grant Thorntons independent research confirms that I have no
ownership or interest in this company.
6. During this discussion, as documented in the December 2, 2009 minutes, and prior to
any decision being made, I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended
bidder was my cousin, as I had previously done to the external consultants, who were
aware of this prior to any disclosure, to Osbourne Moxey, who was also aware prior
to any disclosure, and to the Ministry of Finance. Any interview of these
individuals/agencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made, but also
their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin.
33
7. I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the
December 2, 2009 Board of Directors meeting that the recommended bidder, Telco
Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process. See
below excerpts of the December 2, 2009 BOD meeting:
a. At the Board of Directors Meeting, when the decision to award the Sandilands
contract was discussed, The Director made the following additional disclosure,
memorialized in point 4.8.9 of the December 2, 2009 minutes:
The Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as
Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender process.
At point 4.8.10, the following is also memorialized in the December 2, 2009,
minutes:
Mr. John Pinder, Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not
aware of the Directors relationship to Telco. The Chairman however, indicated
that he was aware.
Although John Pinder had made this comment, it was not material as the Tenders Committee
does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts this was
delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBs Project Manager and these
individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and
me. The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids, and
during this process, although I was not present, and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of
this if the proper investigation was completed, the external consultants and NIBs Project
Manager were fully aware of Telcos inclusion and the relationship.
Grant Thorntons report does not explain the following for works completed on this
project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd).
1. The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be
removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical Services/Basil
McIntosh, who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services. This significantly
increased the project budget.
2. The Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had
to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the
technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report.
3. These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during
the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing.
4. At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor, this
recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works and/or NIB
34
management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National
Insurance and Housing, the project was awarded to the former General Contractor.
5. Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the
advanced stage of deterioration of the project, together with the severity of the
remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns, Telco
Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100% of the
defects and remediation required.
It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton
Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of
these allegations although the motive appears clear:
1. It is simply untrue that on January 27, 2009, the Board was advised that Lewis
Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for
the Sandilands project.
Fact: Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was
recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for
this project.
2. Grant Thorntons Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is
reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence
over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board
of Directors that the principal of Telco was his cousin when it was about to win a
NIB bid for $8.654 million
Fact: Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBs Pre-qualification and
Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless
statement, primarily, as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcos
relationship and in the second instance, I had recused myself completely from the
NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of
the external consultants and NIBs Project Manager. Moreover, full disclosures were
made to the Lead Consultant, the Project Quantity Surveyor, and the former Prime
Minister, of this very public information. Further, I did not benefit from this
transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First
Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure, there was no reason for me to disclose a
public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions; and in the case of
the final disclosure to the Board of Directors, the decision was still made to proceed
and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure.
I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and
incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose
the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this
disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the
35
Board of Directors. This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under
Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24. The appropriate and proper disclosures were
made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to
the Ministry of Finance approving Telco.
3. Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBs Tender Committee
as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report, where the
firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting.
Fact: The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a
transparent manner and record the bids. The Tenders Committee did not have any
responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor. If all
committee members could not be present to open a tender document, management
often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process
followed. It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders
Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members.
4. Grant Thorntons finding relative to Telcos NIB contributions status does not reflect
on my performance as Director. The NIB process required the Buildings Division,
headed by Mr. Osbourne Moxey, to obtain confirmation from the Compliance
department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me. In
this instance, representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr.
Osbourne Moxey and Telcos NIB status certified as current prior to his
recommendation of payments to Telco. During this period, there was a dispute
lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr. Gregory Collie
who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr. Osbourne
Moxey and/or to his team.
Notwithstanding these facts, the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant
Thornton in my affidavit of 28
th
November 2012 and ignored, and the full disclosures made by
me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the
preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned
in early 2007 on the Sandilands project, Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure
was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco. Neither I, nor the Board
of Directors can approve a contract of this size. The proper disclosures were made, full
representation of the Boards resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance,
and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance, not the Director, not the Board
of Directors, and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd.
36
Allegation # 11 Salaries and Bonuses Executive Management
The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several
opinions that are not supported by fact, even though clarifying evidence is provided within the
report and/or enclosures provided by Grant Thornton.
Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be
reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the
misrepresentations in the Forensic Report.
In this regard, the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources
Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward, in his capacity of
Chairman of the Human Resources Committee, to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the
Ministry of Finance. Further, salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the
following Human Resources Committee minutes, and excerpts from a few of the Human
Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond
to the Forensic Report are as follows:
Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11,
2009, at the Human Resources Committee meeting. Patrick Ward, Etienne Bowleg and
Debbie Ferguson, i.e., 100% of the Committee was present at this meeting and the
following comments were recorded:
3.0 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation
3.1.1 Mrs. King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were
aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay
Group.
3.1.2 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure, and
the other Executives made up the five levels below.
3.1.3 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives, only
the new ones coming in.
3.1.4 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by years end, as there
are significant inequities in the structure.
3.1.5 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be
looked at sooner rather than later, and then place a time line for implementation.
He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth, and what the
individual is worth.
3.1.6 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman, and said that this
exercise should be expedited.
37
3.1.7 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers, it could lose its
worth.
3.1.8 Ms. Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two
committee members.
3.1.9 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances
that executives receive, as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the
same level as some of the existing Executives, are receiving higher allowances.
3.1.10 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October
before making a decision on this matter. He invited Management to provide the
Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking. He further stated that it is his
opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary, so that this issue
does not arise again.
On August 30, 2011, when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg, representing 66.67% of the
Committee, a duly constituted Quorum, was present, and Ms. Debbie Ferguson had sent
apologies, and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following
comments were made:
3.8 2010-2011 Salary Survey
3.81 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the
results were presented to the committee. The highlights were as follows:
a. 25% of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average.
b. 32% of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average.
c. 10% of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below
the market average.
d. 3% of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall
below the market average.
3.17.1 The Directors contract will end October 20, 2011.
3.17.2 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg, the
following resolution was adopted:
Be it resolved that the renewal of the Directors contract be forwarded for
Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed
and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions.
In this regard, please refer to letter from Patrick Ward, Chairman of the Board of Directors to
Ehurd Cunningham, Acting Financial Secretary, dated October 5, 2011, wherein the contract
renewal was requested, and which also noted to the Minister that the Directors base salary was
38
$163,072 and increased with the Ministry of Finances approval to $171,225. The Minister
subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its
letter dated October 10, 2011, signed by David Davis, Acting Financial Secretary. There was no
attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140,000, and
consistent with clause 5.0 in my employment contract, my salary had now increased by 16.48%
over a three year period to $163,072. It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the
relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment and/or
any adjustments provided. Further, at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and
the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to
all Executives, and in some cases, the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the
approved increases that I actually received.
February 16, 2011, when Patrick Ward, Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson, representing
100% of the Human Resources Committee was present, the following comments were made:
3.16 Executive I ssues
3.17 Executive Compensation Issues
3.17.1 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and
received satisfactory evaluations. He has copies of the evaluations and supported
the ratings.
3.17.2 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases
which equate to a combined 7% increase over the prior year. The increases in
salaries are to become effective January 1, 2011, and the endorsement of the HR
Committee was now being requested.
3.17.3 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770,427 and in 2011, it will
be $826,660 the dollar value difference was $56,233 for the entire Executive
Group.
3.17.4 On a motion made by Rev. Etienne Bowleg, seconded by Ms. Debbie Ferguson
and unanimously carried, the Committee approved the compensation package as
outlined above.
3.17.5 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included
in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance
measurement guidelines and managements policies for 2010.
Again, on December 1, 2011, when Patrick Ward, Etienne Bowleg, Debbie Ferguson,
representing 100% of the Committee was present, the following comments were made:
39
3.14 Executive Evaluations
3.14.1 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly
installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman.
3.14.2 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily, he
wanted to continue to focus on the following areas:
Leadership
Dealing with Change(or Change Management)
Taking Responsibility
Team Building
3.14.3 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before years
end.
3.15 Executive Compensation
3.15.1 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines
will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance
Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and
that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee.
Again, on February 28, 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this
matter. Present were Patrick Ward, Etienne Bowleg, Debbie Ferguson, representing 100% of the
Committee.
5.0 Executive Compensation
5.1 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases
for executives for 2012. He will review the recommendations and finalize based
on an average range of 2-4% in overall adjustments and the individual
performance of executives.
Importantly, and as stated previously, the Chairman, Patrick Ward, representing his Delegated
Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee, discussed the summaries of all H.R.
discussions, including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors.
Clearly, with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available
to Grant Thornton Auditors, and in some cases included in their Forensic Report, it was clear
firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me, and secondly,
who approved the Over base Compensation, and who was present and supported these
adjustments/payments. It was also clear to Grant Thornton, but excluded from their report that it
is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly
provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes
included therein.
40
It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant
Thornton Forensic Report.
Fact 1: The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval. The interim
increases were based on contract provision 5.0 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the
Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate
salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors.
Fact 2: The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 8.0
Performance Based Bonus Scheme. In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they
applied to Executive Management. Again, all provisions of both contracts were approved by
the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance, the Human Resources Committee and
NIBs Board of Directors.
Fact 3: Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me these payments were
provided to all NIB Executives, including the Legal Officer, the Custodian of the National
Insurance Act, and the Financial Controller, the custodian of the financial records, the Internal
Auditor, the custodian of the Audit Process, based on documented Performance Evaluations and
approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings.
Fact 4: The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director, which was
in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process. This was the responsibility of
NIBs Chairman and in fact, in the legal opinion by Thomas A. E. Evans, QC. Grant Thornton
Report p.221, there was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director, either express or
implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extension.
Fact 5: The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as
Director, in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director
Lennox McCartney, with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the
Governor of the Central Bank, although the Board considered this improper, as well as
informal extension of his contract, and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance
Agency.
Fact 6: The complete Ernst & Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the
entire Board, which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee. The
minutes of the Board of Thursday 21, May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both
reports in section 3.0 under separate sub-sections, based on the record of the discussion. The
Human Resources Legal Advisor, Mr. Rawson McDonald, participated in this special call
meeting to provide details on both reports. In addition to this detailed review, the Human
Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded
in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30, August 2011. As noted, the committee was
41
provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 3.8 of the
minutes. These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report.
Fact 7: The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27, 2007 Grant
Thornton report p.162 continues to p.167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant
Thornton report p.167-Secton 3.10.11) for Executive Management including the then Director,
Mr. Lennox McCartney. It outlines the promotion of Mrs. Cecile Williams-Bethel from
Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p.167-Section3.10.). These
decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note
as follows: Additionally, while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors, at the
subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27, 2007 the referenced meeting was
adopted as read GT p.167. This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of
bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report, particularly when there was clear
evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors.
It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources
Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not
considered. withdrawn. This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton
report.
Fact 8: It is important to note thatNIBs Board approved bonuses as part of the
ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year). In every case, the submitted
executive bonus amounts were authorized. Grant Thornton Report p.200. Moreover, the
Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller, presented by her to the Board of
Directors, and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question
faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually. The bonus
payments are a separate line item on NIBs annual budget and were audited annually by
external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner, Mr. Gowon Bowe and no
exceptions were ever raised to management, to the Board of Directors and/or in the Financial
Statements about salary adjustments and/or over-base compensation payments to executive
management.
It is interesting to note that from October November, 2012, the Minister and the Human
Resources Committee, without any analysis or due diligence, approved salary increases to two
NIB Executives, Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30,000) and Theresa Burrows ($21,000), retroactive
to their hire dates, although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market
rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts. Further, selectively,
and obviously discriminately, Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard, Sonia
Gill and Dr. Kevin Bowe, and excluded Richenda King, Raymond Wells, Phaedra Knowles and
Whitney Patton, although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only H.R.
Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012, but also salary increases, as
documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012. It is curious that the Minister
42
Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives
and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me, particularly as . there was no
rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012. The subsequent public
statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance
to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and
that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were
rehired, without question, and secondly, that the salaries offered were consistent with the
recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports, but
independent market surveys undertaken by NIB. The subsequent comments made with regards
the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives, is also shocking, particularly
as every NIB executive received salary adjustments, approved by Chairman Patrick Ward, based
not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the
Hay Reports, and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary
adjustments. In fact, their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective
performance evaluations, but also to their job pay scales. It was also ignored or not included in
Minister Gibsons comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that
of the average NIB executive, and using the approved and universally accepted Hay
Methodology, the compensation should bear this out; however, the findings in the Grant
Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this
understanding and information was ignored.
Shockingly, I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson, again
arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were
deemed PLP loyal in December 2012, although increases were already awarded by way of the
Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial
Agreement. This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments, in all cases
were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies, and
were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King
to execute. It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were
advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases, we learnt from the two executives managing
this process on behalf of Minister Gibson, that employee X was a Campaign worker for
Candidate Y, and similar comments. Both Unions accepted these promotions to the
dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be
an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did
not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized. Productivity and morale is
said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion
exercise and question why they were not promoted. The cost to NIB of this promotion
exercise exceeded $500,000 per annum.
43
Opinion of Grant Thornton:
Although the Ernst & Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed
separately, Grant Thorntons opinion is that they appear to be treating them as one report,
Grant Thornton Forensic Report p.129. This is not supported by the facts, and the basis for
this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing.
Legal Opinion of Thomas A. E. Evans, Q.C:
It is immaterial that neither Mr. Ward nor Mr. Cargill nor the Human Resources V.P.
specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardare bound to exercise fair and
reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyIt may therefore not be
open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase component,
Grant Thomas report p.223. There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward, Chairman of the
Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any
information at any level to any Board or Committee Member, and the documented minutes and
his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the
Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard.
The legal opinion of Thomas A. E. Evans Q.C., There is, however a caveat which arises out
of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary
increases in question. GT Report p.223.
General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report
1. Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant
Thornton unless questions were provided in advance. This claim is not only false, but
cannot be supported with any facts, particularly as the myriad of correspondence from
my attorneys to Grant Thornton, many of which were gratuitous and have not been
responded to, continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic
Investigation exercise. Moreover, my request for advance questions was consistent
with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that
were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and
usurpation of my rights to due process. It is interesting that there is no expansion in
the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntons Managing
Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears
& Co that they had no questions for me; however, I was free to visit their office and
ask any questions that I may have had. If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me
with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me and/or my
attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such.
2. The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay
Report refer to Minutes dated August 30, 2011.
44
3. The comments on page 16, re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directors
Compensation, and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act
(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any
Industrial Agreement.
4. Comments on page 209, final paragraph: It is clear from the evidence presented to
Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the
Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr. Wards actions in approving the
Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee.
5. Comments on page 210, point 11.4b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the
range of fifteen (15%) to seventy one point eight percent (71.80%) of the base
salaries of executives. I received a 71.80% bonus on my 2010 base salary of
$145,000. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of
Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in
January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in
December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment. Surprisingly,
there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus
on payments that I received. This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further
damage my character and reputation, and also to ignore the fact that NIBs entire
executive management received these approved payments.
6. Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of
bonus payments of $723k, that the members of the HR Committee did not have the
specific knowledge of the Hay Group report. This is incorrect. Grant Thorntons
own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources
Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009
Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were
underpaid.
7. I dont understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton
Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards
in my capacity as NIB Director. These appointments were all made with the approval
of the Board/Chairman and the Ministry of Finance. I surely did not appoint myself
to any of these Boards and moreover, there are currently at least two NIB employees
that now sit on other statutory/public Boards. Should this have also been disclosed in
Grant Thorntons Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation?
It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include
the following:
1. Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase
30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead,
45
procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012
General Elections, Nybor Investments/Robyn Smith. In fact, Mr. Gregory Moss had
advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased
from the vendor (Nybor Investments/Robyn Smith) recommended by Minister
Gibson. The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a
substantial mark-up to the purchase.
2. Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the
printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American
Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan, and after receipt of the
quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing, directed this job to Nybor
Investments/Robyn Smith, whose price was marginally below the quotations received
from American Printing Arts, the recommended bidder.
3. Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that
was fully functioning in NIBs fleet, without a tender process to an employee in
Abaco, the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU. I am advised that he
was very troubled that this employee, the survivor of a former union colleague, had
no transportation and had to walk/hike to work in Marsh Habour. He collaborated
with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee, as a gift from
him, on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the
vehicle from Nassau to Abaco, and the second pay for the insurance. For the gift
vehicle, I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase.
The gift vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the
Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided
outside of the NIB tender process, and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell
fleet vehicle to employees.
4. Even more alarming, Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he
directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract
for the JL Center project at the same price ($8.879 million) that the contract was
awarded to Coastline Construction Company, a company that won the tender through
NIBs transparent and public tender process. Further, Minister Gibson directed that
Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not, then the contact
they also won through NIBs then transparent tender process would be taken away
from them together with the JL Center Project. During these directions to NIB,
Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with
NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the
time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately. Minister Gibson was
also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job, that they did not provide any
costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlines price,
46
who Ranmars sub contractors were, and/or any normal due diligence that was
associated at the time with NIBs tender process.
5. Also, it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence
a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were
subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement, to be awarded
to select Engineers, Quantity Surveyors, contractors et al. This plan was prepared by
Theresa Burrows, Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me
under Minister Gibsons direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister
Gibson via email by me in October 2012. Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms.
Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants
that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts, many for projects not
yet even started or scoped.
6. The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers, Quantity
Surveyors, and Electricians, Air-Condition specialists, Plumbers etc. engaged by NIB,
the rates they are being paid, the frequency and location of their engagements, the
tender process used for all of these engagements etc. Was there a practical or even
deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report?
7. The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministers intent to cancel
the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services, air-
condition maintenance, plumbing, elevator maintenance, janitorial services etc., and
instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or
the PLP. NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the
vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBs
public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was
always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers.
Instead, vendors are being selected to respond to the tenders and the vendor who
currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be
cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about
the service they provide.
Until this point, I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of
Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only
orchestrated by Mr. Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea
or knowledge why Mr. Moss was acting in this manner. I believed, and primarily because of
disclosures made to me by him that Mr. Moss was acting without his knowledge, direction, or
approval. However, I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by
Minister Gibson, and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control,
and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility
to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who
had direct oversight and control of their functional areas. Unfortunately, it does appear,
47
particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to
address my family and me in the House of Assembly, that the Minister of Labour and National
Insurance in the first instance, and secondly, the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party, are
now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was
completed without any input from me in the National Media. I am very concerned that I am
being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the
former Chairman of the National Insurance Board, the Minister of Labour and National
Insurance, and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party, in view of the public comments
now being made by Mr. Bradley Roberts, the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr.
Shane Gibson, the Minister of Labour and National Insurance. This is particularly troubling to
my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party, my father
was buried on March 9, 2013, with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck, and my
oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor. My entire
family that is resident in Yamacraw, had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over
the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident. Until
these attacks started on my name and that of my family. Although my political affiliation is of
no significant consequence and relevance to this matter; any careful review would have
confirmed complete alignment with my family, and at the time Mr. Hubert Ingraham hired me as
the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board, presumably on the recommendation of
the National Insurance Board, he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct
interview I had with him, or has he ever discussed any political matters with me. I was hired to
do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company, at a significant
financial pay cut, to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract, that
includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate. In fact, the
former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I
suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the
best of his knowledge, that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party. This
matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to
determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my
name and that of my family.
Finally, I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold
Miller Show on Friday, May 10, 2013, in response to a call from my sister, Dr. Ursula Cargill,
PhD, a graduate of The College of The Bahamas, Morgan State University, the State University
of New York at Buffalo, and Princeton University. In response to remarks made by my younger
sister, who acted without my knowledge or input, the Minister stated emphatically that I offered
my first cousin, Theresa Cargill-Burrows, whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012, a years salary
on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction. This comment is
not only false, but ridiculous for many reasons; the most important is that I have no
responsibility for payroll, and if it were possible to complete this action, it could not be done
48
without the full awareness of the Human Resources department, the Financial Controller, and the
Internal and External Auditors, particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I
joined the National Insurance Board on October 20, 2008. He concluded his remarks with
comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly, presumably
because there is ample protection for slander. These comments should be made outside of the
House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my
name and reputation. It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain, that is, outside of
the House of Assembly, i.e., on the Darold Miller Show on Friday, May 10, 2013, that I
terminated my first cousin, Theresa Cargill-Burrows, when the records would reflect that she
was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20, 2008. At
the time of her termination, I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico.
Moreover, he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other
executives this again is false and NIBs records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources
Committee, the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance, not me, retired two of these
executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired), and ended the employment of the
remaining three. The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the
individuals, and it is not the case as reported by the Minister, that the severance received by the
rehired individuals was repaid, certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of
the National Insurance Board. I have had no authority to hire and/or terminate any executive of
NIB and a review of NIBs files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources
Committee, the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these
decisions.
Yours sincerely,
Algernon M. Cargill
cc: Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G. Christie
The Honorable Minister D. Shane Gibson
Board of Directors, NIB
Enclosures
49
Enclosures 1- 8
the NATIONAL
INSURANCE BOARD
OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill
DIRECTOR
OF THE BAHAMAS
October 9,2012
Mr. Gregory Moss
Chainnan
The National Insurance Board
Nassau, Bahamas
Dear Mr. Moss
Re: Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd.
I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board
Room of the National Insurance Board, headquarter on October 8, 2012, that commenced at 4pm
and ended at approximately 10pm. This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis, and Gregory
Moss, Chainnan of the Board of Directors, along with Deputy Director, Bernard Evans and
Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie, and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in
attendance.
The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose
for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment, the role of the executive responsible for the security of the
lease, the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment, from a list of other properties; and
the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB, Mr. Patrick Ward, and
the information provided to the former Prime Minister, Mr. H. Ingraham, with respect to the
approval of the lease.
It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port
Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in
the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software, specifically, Advanced Integrated
Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project. In
order to fully implement this programme, NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and
appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines. The
capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to
$1 .0 million for the software plus associated expenses, (housing, work permit fees, travel costs
etc.) all included in the AIS contract. It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of
this project was compressed for the launch of this project; and NIB Deputy Director of
Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project.
The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director.
He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project
P.O. Box N-750B, N.P., Bahamas TEL: (242) 502-1762 FAX: 242.322-2923 algernon.cargill@nib-bahamas.com
to completion. In order to secure adequate physical accommodation for the off site or outside
foreign contractors, as specified as a requirement in the contract document, the IT Executive
Manager undertook to secure proper short time lease of premises in a secure area within
proximity to NIB with availability of security and sufficiently sized comfortable for the
contractors.
Once the IT department selected the Sandy Port Apartment, he submitted a request for
approval of payment to me by letter date February 25, 2010 for my approval which was granted
on February 26, 2010. However, the lease was executed by Mr. Wells prior to February 26
th
2010, but with a commencement date of March 1, 2010 on the terms of a short term lease.
Nonetheless, prior to the approval of the payment, after I fully disclosed all circumstances with
regards this apartment directly to him, Mr. Wells and I immediately consulted the then Chairman
of the Board of NIB and secured his consent to go ahead with the lease. It was only after this
period that approval for payment was granted on February 26, 2010. In this regard, we also wish
to inform you that subsequently, the Chairman and I met with the former Prime Minster and I
fully disclosed the lease executed, and all circumstances associated with it, directly to him.
I would particularly wish to note that Board of Directors Committee meetings have
always been held in a non-contentious, amicable manner, characterized by mutual respect,
civility and a keen sense of professionalism and collegiality. This productive atmosphere was
fostered in a spirit of co-operation and respect and appreciation of the collective efforts of all key
managers. This atmosphere created and fostered a spirit ofteam work, accountability, trust and
support which is crucial to the maintenance of a productive executive team.
Needless to say, I was disturbed by the antagonistic, contentious, contemptuous, and
condescending manner in which the meeting was held. No doubt, it seemed evident that the
purpose of the antagonistic interrogation aimed at me, was not to seek information, but was
calculated to cast doubt on my veracity in general, and on my character in particular. The fact
that this inquisition commenced in the presence of my colleagues and peers, for whom I have
responsibility for the efficient and effective management of NIB, was in itself an entirely
demeaning and disrespectful experience. I am further concerned that after I expressed concern
about the discomfort that I felt as a result of the unprofessional interrogation of a matter fully
approved by the then Chairman of the National Insurance Board, that the aggressive,
antagonistic, and condescending interrogation continued in the presence of all Contracts and
Tenders Committee Members, and the Secretary of the Board of Directors, an employee that I
have direct oversight of. I do note that the Secretary took notes of this meeting and now formally
record my wish that before any of these notes are memorialized, that I be provided with a copy
for review and approval, and secondly, that this letter form a permanent part of the file you
appear to be creating.
2
I wish to also document my concern about the unprofessional manner in which the
committee continues to seek information on this matter from employees of NIB that report to me.
In several circumstances, there is documented communication written by the Committee's
Chainnan, copying members of the Board, and certain members of staff, but excluding me. I
question the purpose of this method of communication and express my discomfort at these events
and their contribution to the continued unprofessional ism emanating from The Contracts and
Tenders Committee of The Board of Directors.
Nonetheless, I will continue to attempt to foster a spirit of amicability, professionalism
and respect with regard to the conduct of my duties as Director of NIB and will discharge my
duties accordingly. It is my desire that there will be no recurrence of the behaviour displayed at
the last meeting. I am always prepared to accept and follow the guidelines of the Board of
Directors and Chairman, and will continue to perform my duties in a professional matter
Finally, Mr. Wells is the professional at NIB responsible for the IT project and all other
decisions incidental to it, including the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment, therefore, in the event
that you have need for any further information with regard to this matter, these inquiries should
be addressed to him. In the meantime, I enclose to complete this file the communication written
by Gail Carey on Monday, March 1,2010, the Executed Lease Document, the Payment Request
dated February 26, 2010, and the communication between Chairman Greg Moss and Raymond
Wells on October 9,2012.
Algernon Cargill
Director
Cc: The Hon. Perry G. Christie, Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
The Hon. Phillip Brave Davis, Deputy Prime Minister
The Hon. Shane Gibson, Minister of Labour and National Insurance
Mr. Bernard Evans, Deputy Chairman, The National Insurance Board
Mr. Patrick Ward, Former Chainnan, The National Insurance Board
3
Information Technology Dept.
INTERNAL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Algernon Cargill
Director
FROM: Mr. Raymond Wells
Vice President, Information Technology
DATE: 25
th
February, 2010
SUBJECT: Accommodations for AIS Staff
AIS staff will be onsite for a period of four to six months working on the Drug Plan. I
propose that we house them in a safe and less costly accommodation than that of a hotel.
The places that best met the requirements for safety (gated) arid cost were Delaporte
Point and a condo at Sandyport. The lease will be for a three month period initially and
on a month to month basis afterwards.
I obtained quotes from both places for the three month period and they are as follows:
Delaporte Point $4500.00 (all costs included)
Sandyport $6666.70 (all costs included)
I suggest that we house AIS staff at Sandyport as it is the best choice of the two options.
The Sandyport residence has an additional bathroom and individual spaces that gives
each occupant more privacy and work space. It also provides space to house a fourth
staff member as it becomes necessary.
I seek your approval and assistance in this matter.
Algernon Cargill
From:
Raymond Wells
Sent:
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 8:07 PM
To:
Shane D; Algernon Cargill
Subject:
FW: Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012; Spm; NIB
HQ
Minister Gibson and Director Cargill,
I wish to refer you to the email sent by Chairman Moss today (along with my response) concerning a meeting he wants
me to attend. While I am at the Board's disposal and available to answer any questions and attend any meetings
required of me, I simply for personal obligations, cannot attend Thursday's meeting.
The Chairman's response to me is nothing short of threatening and intimidating among other things.
I would respectfully like to relay that throughout my entire career, I have never been anything other than a
professional. The significant changes I brought to NIB and the innovative implementation of information systems
therein, are a testament to this level of professionalism and commitment.
Regards,
Raymond Wells
Deputy Director, The National Insurance BoardjVP, Information Technology
From: Raymond Wells
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 7:56 PM
To: 'G Moss'; Patrick Davis
Cc: Ernestine Kelson; jayson_moxey06@yahoo.com; harry.collie@scotiabank.com; shatea928@yahoo.com; Richenda
King; Heather Maynard
Subject: RE: Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012; 5pm; NIB HQ
Chairman Moss,
Because of prior urgent arrangements which cannot be changed at this late date, I will be unable to attend the
meeting schedule for 11 October 2012 @ 5 pm. I am prepared to attend all meetings when requested to do so
and I will answer all questions which are requested of me.
I respectfully suggest the meeting be held at a more convenient time and date.
Are for the specific questions below, I have provided the answers and is available to discuss as stated above.
indentification of who approved such rental and payments in respect of such rental
I Signed the lease for the apartment as part of my blanket authority from the Board for managing the Drug Plan Project
and mandate for controlling costs. Payments was subsequently approved by Director Cargill.
whether you were aware that the apartment was owned by Director Cargill's brother and, if so, when you became
so aware
I became aware after the contract was signed.
1
whether Director Cargill was aware of such rental and, if so, when he became so aware.
Director Cargill became aware after the contract was signed. It was at that this pOint he disclosed and sought clarification
on the way forward from the then Chairman in my presence as it related to the contract. Approval to continue was
granted by the then Chairman.
the basis of the authority upon which you executed the contract for such rental
I was mandated by the Board to find suitable accommodations for the AIS team so as to control the quickly rising project
costs.
the reasoning for approving such rental in comparison to other available rental opportunities
Knowing AIS would require suitable accommodations (for which NIB was required to pay) for its staff and there would be a
significant amount of persons joining the installation team during various stages of the rollout, we sought to find a suitable
apartment. A 3 bedroom with 3 bathrooms was deemed suitable in a secured area, with utilities and the like
included. This apartment met aU of the requirements.
the time frame for which such rental continued
Approx. 17 months.
the present state of account in respect of such rental
During the AIS stay there was an altercation some of AlS' guests that caused damages to the Apt. I was
advised that the deposit was used to cover costs.
Regards,
Raymond Wells
Deputy Director, The National Insurance Board/VP, Information Technology
From: G Moss fmailto:gkmbarca@yahoo.coml
Sent: Tuesday, October 09,20124:56 PM
To: Patrick Davis; Raymond Wells
Cc: Ernestine Kelson; iayson mQXey06@yahoo.com; harry.coflie@scotiabank.com; shatea928@yahoo.com; Richenda
King; Heather Maynard
Subject: RE: Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012; 5pm; NIB HQ
Mr. Wells,
Out of office for what purpose?
I recall that you recently returned from vacation and wish to be clear that your attendance at the meeting on Thursday
of the Contracts and Tenders Meeting is mandatory.
In the event that you have any other obligation within NIB which would interfere with your ability to attend that meeting,
please immediately advise and I will see to any such obligation being waived. In the event of any other personal
obligation being the cause of your inability to attend I expect and require that you immediately reschedule such personal
obligation.
Subject to any clarification or addition which Director Davis may wish to make, let me be clear that your attendance at the
said meeting shall be to discuss the factual circumstances surrounding the rental of a Sandyport apartment by NIB from
Jesel Car Rental Company in 2010. As it turns out, the apartment was rented from Director Cargill's brother although he
was not named on the rental document as having been the Landlord. The Committee shall require your responses as to
the factual matrix surrounding such rental, including but not limited to the following:
2
indentification of who approved such rental and payments in respect of such rental
whether you were aware that the apartment was owned by Director Cargill's brother and, if so, when you became
so aware
whether Director Cargill was aware of such rental and, if so, when he became so aware.
the basis of the authority upon which you executed the contract for such rental
the reasoning for approving such rental in comparison to other available rental opportunities
the time frame for which such rental continued
the present state of account in respect of such rental
Any refusal or failure by you to attend this meeting of the Committee and to provide comprehensive answers to those
questions will be viewed as an act of insubordination on your part.
Please confirm that you will be in attendance.
Regards.
Gregory K. Moss
Chairman of the Board, NIB
--- On Tue, 10/9/12, Raymond Wells <RWells@nib-bahamas.com>wrote:
From: Raymond Wells <RWells@nib-bahamas.com>
Subject: RE: Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012; 5pm; NIB HQ
To: "Patrick Davis" <mundon325@live.com>
Cc: "Gregory Moss" <gkmbarca@yahoo.com>, "Ernestine Kelson" <EKelson@nib-bahamas.com>,
"jayson moxey06@yahoo.com" <jayson moxey06@yahoo.com>, "harry.collie@scotiabank.com"
<harry.collie@scotiabank.com>, "shatea928@yahoo.com" <shatea928@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2012, 4:17 PM
Good Afternoon Mr. Davis,
I will be happy to meet with the Contract and Tenders Committee, however I will be out of office on Thursday.
Additionally (and respectfully), it would be helpful if you can provide me with the matters you would like to
discuss so that I can be prepared.
Thanks
Regards,
Raymond Wells
Deputy Director, The National Insurance BoardNP, Information Technology
From: Patrick Davis [mailto:mundon325@live.com)
Sent: Tuesday, October 09,201210:58 AM
To: Raymond Wells
3
Cc: Gregory Moss; Ernestine Kelson; jayson moxey06@yahoo.com; harry.collie@scotiabank.com;
shatea928@yahoo.com
Subject: Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012; 5pm; NIB HQ
Good morning Mr. Wells,
The Contracts and Tenders Committee requests your presence at the above captioned meeting to review and discuss
matters pertaining to the various contracts relative to your Department.
Kindly, confirm you attendance via email to myself or The Board Secretary.
Regards,
PLD
Disclaimer Link - Click to view : http://www.nib-bahamas.com/Email-Disc/aimer
4
Inf ormation Technologv Dept.
INTERNAL
MEMORANDUM
TO: . Mr. 'Raymond Wells
.. Vice PRsident, Information Technology
. Gail Carey .
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECTz ClarIOcatl8. ofHouln, CIIolce at SMldyPert fer A1S Staff
On a point ofclarification, in accordance with the oontract betweenNm and AlS, NIB is
required to provide 8OOO1DIIlC?dation for AlS staffwhen they are in the Bahamas to
providescrvices for the National Prescription Drug Plan (NPDP).
For it was decided. that'in the lool-termhotel would
be too expensive. 'Therefore, it was determinod that a condominium or an
in pted area or.community would be options for safety reasons. After
checldngseveral houses in the Cable Beach area which were not considered because they
were they were not 'up to standard, rr settled.on an apartmenUn SandyPOl1for four (4)
reBSOns: .
1. Safety.
2. The apartment layout surpassed the other choices (offering more privacy) .
. 3. The was able to accommodate all ofthe perSons from AlS traveliing to
the Bahamas for tbepurpose IT implementation.
4. Tbeotllet CQmparabIein cost.
It was after IT deCided to go with the SandyPort option that it discQvered that the
apartment was owned by the Directors brother.Mr. Godwin Cargill. Given the fact that
we needed to move the tWo (2) staff'members from AISout ofthe Hilton urgently, it was
decidCd to move forward Wi1h the request for the apartment.
During the search and decision to utilize the apartmeIlt in SandyPort, itshould be clear
that the Director bad o ~ n c e or kDowledge in the procurement oftlie.apartment. h
was only after thedaCiaionwas made aiJd at the point 9ffinBl-.pprovaltbat the of
ownership wasbrouahttO his attention.. i tbat this cliuifies any potential
~ .
...."
.""
JE8-EL CAR COMPANY LTD .
P.O.BOX SP-60156
124 GOVERNOR'S CAY SANDYPORT
NASSAU, BAHAMAS
PH: 317-15511357-4636
RINTAL AGRDMENT
Teaamts NllID.e: The Natiooal Insurance Board
Address: P.O.Box N-7S08
Coatad Name: Name: Gail Carey-Ga)' Phone #:242-302-]747
WI1NESSETH, that the 18lldIord hereby leases to the tenant the pmnises known
as 124A Governor's Cay & Sandyport Drive, situated at Sandyport., Nassau, Bahamas.
LEASE TO COMMENCE:
March 1
st
, 2010 _.
DURATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT: Short Term(Lass than 12 mths)
TERMlNAT[ON DATE: Either party can tenni.n8tc this
agreement by giving the other party
30 days written notice
MONIHLY RENTAL: 56666.70
(Such payment to be made on the 1
51
day ofeach month)
SECURITY DEPOSIT: S 5,000.00
(To be paid on the execution oftbis
lease and to be reimbursed to the
Tenant on the expiration ofthis
agreement)
SMOJJne 'V 9UU8!G
... ":" '. "' ....: .. :.. : .: : .. -'
: "-:'
- .. ------ ---- -. -... --
.... .... .... .._1.. .
,
"
The TENANT covenants and agrees as follows:
1. To pay the Landlord the above monthly rental amount on or before the due date
dming the term ofthis lease agreement.
2. The Landlord shall pay all utilities including Electrical Power, Water, Phone
(local dialing only tenant shall be responsible for any long distance calls made),
Cable TV (basic Only), Internet Services, and Housekeeping Services (once per
week: on Friday's only).
3. The Tenant will report to the Landlord any apparent damage to the property to
avoid fin1her deterioration and the Tenant will be liable for any damages. All
damages during this short tenn lease will be repaired or replace by the landlord
and deducted from the secmity deposit.
4. The Tenant is responsible for all personal belongings because the Landlord is not
liable for any damages to the Tenant's belongings including furniture.
5. To permit the Landlord upon their giving reasonable notice with or without
workmen or others and with or without tools or appliances of any sort to enter
upon the demised premises and to view the condition thereof and make alterations
or repairs as'the Landlord deems to be necessary.
6. Not to move from the demised premises any part ofthe demised :furniture (which
includes a Washer, Dryer, Refrigerator, Oven, Cook top, Microwave, Wine
Cooler, 50" Flat Screen TV, 48" Flat Screen TV, 32" Flat Screen TV, (2) 20" Flat
Front TV's, Central Air Conditioning Units, and Gas Tank) and the efforts
provided by the Landlord but to preserve the same in the present condition and to
replace with articles ofthe same sort and value ofall such parts ofthe demised
fwniture and effects as shall be broken damaged or destroyed ofat the opinion of
the Landlord to pay for all such articles at their full price.
7. Pets not allowed as Tenants.
8. The Landlord shall have and can exercise the right to and repossess the
prem,ises ifany part ofthe said rent, whether fonnally demanded or not, shall be
TWENTY ONE DAYS IN ARREARS or should the Tenant fail to observe the
agreed stipulations ofthe lease.
9. fu case ofdamage to privately owned possessions through Fire, Hurricane or any
inevitable accident the Landlord will not assume liability.
(J/)Vf/u -rtfr R'DAflO
TENANT'S NAME (PRINT) SIGN
LANDLORD NAME (PRINT)
THIS LEASE MADE THE.__l=s-.t_--,DAY OF "-!;M=ar:!..:.c::!:!:h.'---_---'2=0 .... 1..=.O
PATRICK WARD
October 11. 2012
Mr. Algernon Cargill
Director,
National Insurance Board
Nassau, Bahamas.
Dear Mr. Cargill,
Re: Sandy Port Apartment -Jes E1 Car Ltd.
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 9
th
October 2012. in connection with the above.
I would confirm that your recounting of the facts, as it relates to your personal disclosure to me,
and, subsequent disclosure to the former Prime Minister, accords with my own recollection of the
events in question.
In addition to what you have said, it is also my recollection that this matter was discussed in some
detail with the current Minister with responsibility for NIB, during the briefing/handover exercise
which we jointly conducted not long after his appointment.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance in this matter.
NASSAU, BAHAMAS P.O. BOX CB-13888
PHONE: (242) 327 3197