Election official to be resummoned by PAC

Feb 19, 2014 News

---

– “to clarify a number of inconsistencies”

A “disrespectful” letter to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) will see Calvin Benn, Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Chief Election Officer, being once again summoned by the body.
As it regards the action to be taken in relation to Benn’s letter, Chairman of the PAC, Carl Greenidge, said that the Committee agreed on Monday that he will be resummoned to clarify a number of inconsistencies and be made to bring material that would verify what he said.
“When he comes we will ensure he understands clearly the responsibilities of the Public Accounts Committee versus his own,” Greenidge stressed.

At issue is the sum of $435,000 which disappeared from a drawer in Benn’s office in September 2006 after a fire.
The matter was once again brought to the attention of the members of the PAC on February 3.   Benn appeared before the Committee on that date to answer for the missing money which was highlighted in the 2011 report of the Auditor General.
Benn sought to make clear by way of a public missive that the money could not be located after he had secured it in his office. In the recently published letter, he presented the report he gave to the police on September 16, 2006.
According to the police report, Benn claimed that he was in the company of security personnel who checked the top drawer where he secured $435,000 along with his Scotiabank gold card.
He said that the money was part of a larger sum of money issued to him by the Accounts Division to offset costs for various activities for the preparation and conduct of elections and election activities.
Following several meetings with the PAC, the Elections Official had promised to provide the necessary reports to the PAC to corroborate his story. But Benn subsequently recanted.
According to Chairman Greenidge, Benn instead, sent a letter which the members found not only to be contentious but also disrespectful.
The letter stipulated that the Committee would now have to refer to the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) for any information it desires.
“This is a matter which has been around for some time and the inconsistencies are quite obvious. At one stage he said he took the money before the elections and it disappeared nine days after. But the Committee contended that it was not supposed to be in his possession for so long.
“Then another time he told us that it was in a safe and he even showed us a photograph of the safe but the police report  contradicted this, as it had that the money was secured in a drawer. Several questions followed after these inconsistencies came to the fore,” Greenidge said.
Another PAC member, Gail Teixeira, had requested the police report that Benn made. But he claimed that a copy was already given to the Clerk of the National Assembly.
It was also revealed by Benn that GECOM’s Board had given clear instructions that the directive to take the missing money from his salary not be followed.
However, Greenidge firmly asserts that neither the Board nor GECOM’s Chairman has the power to state what actions given by the Committee should not be adhered to.
“Benn is still to determine before the committee when the money was removed and why it was not spent. The committee feels that the money was inappropriately taken and we asked it to be deducted from his salary.”
Due to the fact of conflicting dates, the PAC Chairman undertook to have the matter looked at carefully.
“Benn had agreed to send the necessary information; instead, he sent a letter of complaint to the media and one to the committee, stating that it did not have the right to take certain actions and more importantly, wrote a letter which the PAC regarded as contemptuous, because instead of answering the questions he wrote a note focusing on the power of GECOM.”
Greenidge added, “Benn seems to not understand that when financial regulations are breached, it is a matter for the Auditor General (AG) and not the Chairman of GECOM.  If a breach took place, then the Chairman of GECOM has no power to stop the PAC from taking action or even the AG.”
The PAC Chairman firmly asserted that the responsibility for ensuring that the state’s monies are spent for their appropriated purposes is vested in the AG.
“The Auditor General’s responsibility includes reviewing constitutional offices such as GECOM. Article 222 (a) of the Constitution says that those said institutions are to adhere to financial regulations.
In reviewing the report of the AG and preparing comments for the National Assembly, the PAC has the power to summon officers to account for the use of money or any impropriety identified by the AG. The officer cannot hide behind the Constitutional office or its Board if a breach has occurred.”

---

---