The Tribune

By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Staff Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

RECURRING breaches of confidentiality at the executive level of the National Insurance Board has left board directors stumped, according to deputy chairman Bernard Evans.

The highly anticipated forensic audit into allegations of impropriety and misuse of funds concerning suspended director Algernon Cargill and chairman Gregory Moss will be completed and presented to the government within the first week of January.

Last night, Mr Evans said board members were briefed on the possibility of an emergency meeting to discuss the “devastating” leaks as the matter was a “pressing concern” to Labour Minister Shane Gibson.

Mr Evans could not confirm whether or not an investigation would be commenced at that time.

Bonuses awarded to eight NIB senior executives and a contracted worker over a three-year period were made public last week. According to the information, which was also posted on a tabloid website, executives were awarded a total sum of $723,333 in six payments.

The information has incited speculation over the legitimacy of bonuses awarded to Mr Cargill, who was alleged to have received just under $200,000 in bonuses.  

A tabloid website, which posted a photo of the document outlining the bonuses, has accused Mr Cargill of “abusing the system”.

Former chairman Patrick Ward has since come forward to defend the rational for executive bonuses, adding that the release of the figures was a clear violation of the Data Protection Act.

Mr Ward pointed out that the name of one executive, and corresponding bonuses, had been redacted by the website. According to him this was “pertinent” to any subsequent investigation.  

Mr Ward added: “The only way this could have come to light is by someone who has access to the human resources files.”

“What they cannot say is that they were not properly awarded, no one is making that assertion. In making that assertion, they would have to make a case that we were acting outside of the scope of our responsibilities.

“This,” he said, “is a deliberate attempt to change the focus from the clear and important allegations that speak to wrong doing, no one is saying there’s anything wrong here.”

In an interview with The Tribune yesterday, Mr Evans maintained that the revelations made concerning executive bonuses awarded to senior management had not yet been presented to the Human Resources committee, on which he presides as director, or the Audit committee.

“First the suspension (of the NIB director was leaked), then the executive bonuses. I was devastated,” he said.

“We need to find the source of this leak.”

Mr Evans added: “There is a forensic audit that is being undertaken, this could have only come from that. It has to be someone working from the audit. I don’t know if it’s an outsider putting it together or someone on the inside. I don’t know who it is that we can hold responsible.”

Speaking to The Tribune yesterday, Paul Gomez, managing partner at Grant Thornton Bahamas, said: “Our report on the NIB matter, which will be issued no later than January 8, 2013, will be supported by evidence. Our firm cannot speak to the constant leaks to the media other than to say that our report will be “comprehensive” and “fair to all parties.”

On condition of anonymity, a source within the firm dismissed the notion of the firm’s culpability concerning the leaked NIB documents as unfounded and nonsensical.

“It’s nonsense, any insinuation or suggestion that the leaks are coming from our firm, I think they are unfounded, silly, and designed to stir up emotions,” said the source.

Pointing out that the firm had nothing to gain by leaking information that they would eventually release in a full report, the source added: “I would say to everybody to calm down and wait for the report. Either the documents are there or not there, the support is there or not there, we’re going to be guided by standards. The standards will determine procedures, procedures will determine what evidence we look at, and evidence will determine whether allegations are supported or not.”