Opposition troubled by interview panel changing criteria for FID top job

 

Opposition Spokesman on Finance Julian Robinson says it is troubling that an interview panel had the authority to change the job criteria for the top post at the Financial Investigations Division (FID).

 

Information Minister Dr. Dana Morris Dixon revealed on Tuesday that the removal of the law enforcement requirement resulted from conversations among the interview panel that were not documented.

 

She disclosed that after retired Deputy Commissioner of Police Fitz Baily declined the offer to head the FID, the panel decided to re-advertise the post to broaden the pool of individuals.

 

Speaking Thursday on the Morning Agenda on Power 106, Mr. Robinson said the government's explanation is not plausible.

 

"I think what she said just cannot wash. It doesn't make sense. There is nowhere in government where an interviewing panel either has the authority or the mandate to change the requirements for a job at that senior level without any documentation, without reference to any other organisation, either the Services Commission or anything, and just unilaterally, verbally make such a substantive change without more. That doesn't exist in government. Government does not operate that way. So that explanation provided by the minister simply cannot stand the test of scrutiny. And if it is actually so, then it raises a whole lot of other questions about who would have given the interviewing panel that authority or mandate to do so," he contended.  

 

In the meantime, Mr. Robinson said it remains the opposition's position that the government used its influence in the selection of chartered accountant Dennis Chung to head the FID.

 

"What you've seen quite frankly is what I call shifting sand. There was one explanation provided by the Solicitor General who is the government's lawyer and acting on the instructions of the government. There was then a second explanation provided by the minister, and then the Ministry of Finance issued a release yesterday - which when I saw it, I wondered what the purpose of that release was - to then withdraw it later on in the night. So you're seeing three different explanations for what happened in this process. And quite frankly, when you add up the three of them, they don't add up to one.

 

"What we have seen, to put it bluntly, is a manipulation of a process to suit an individual so that this individual could get the job. And what the government is trying to do is cover its tracks with various explanations, none of which can stand up to any scrutiny at all," the opposition spokesman argued.