FS says Skelton Cline’s contract should’ve been clearer
Financial Secretary (FS) Jeremiah Frett has said the language of government consultancy contracts given to Claude Skelton Cline should have been clearer in terms of the deliverables government wanted.
Frett gave this indication when he appeared before the Commission of Inquiry (COI) recently.
The FS, who served as Skelton Cline’s immediate supervisor on recent consultancies, suggested that the contracts that were given to Skelton Cline did not allow for sufficient or effective monitoring.
“If you look at the construct of the contract … it states that you must have three deliverables and the three deliverables [must] equal to $5 million. I believe, in my view, that the requirements of supervision and monitoring that is in the contract; it should have been clearer and be more specific in many instances,” Frett told the COI.
He continued: “From my knowledge of the first contract into the second contract, there may not have been [a] person to say ‘daily monitor Mr Cline’. [That is:] whether or not he went to meetings, is there notes from the meeting, who did you call. [Things should have been done] just how the lawyers do it — everything they jot down and what they do day-to-day and make that part of their billing system. There is no system like that [for [Mr Cline],” Frett told the COI.
He also argued that there was no consistency in the documents Skelton Cline submitted to report on his progress. But, again, Frett, said he believes the root of that problem lies within the contract itself.
“It should have been clearer in the document — in that agreement — how the reporting mechanism should have been,” Frett stated.
He said the government was ultimately relying on the deliverables that were requested in the contract to properly evaluate the work that Skelton Cline produced.
Skelton Cline was engaged by various governments over the years in several projects, some of which were deemed by auditors to have lacked value for money.
Copyright 2024 BVI News, Media Expressions Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.
A contract is a contract. Once signed it should be enforced. When one claims gratuity even though contract was written in error. The private person signing the contract must also live up to his side. He can not now run to his friends and beg for ease. The report said monthly reporting and he signed. He said he is good at what he does yet he proved over the duration of the contract to be anything than.
A contract made in error is not a contract. Despite it was signed, a court would rule in non-enforced. Beyond that, the person in question was informed of the error. Why insist on collecting monies not owed? Where is his moral compass?
People who behave this way should not be awarded future contracts with the government.
I said the same thing he should now be banned from all government contracts, Too many people playing church. For the LOVE of MONEY is the root of all Evil.
A contract once signed is binding on the signatories. You can only seek the court’s intervention if any clause in the contract is unlawful. Then only that clause will be exempt and the others binding unless they all proceed from the primary. Contract law 101.
a fast-talking c**man, even if he has the morals of a cockroach. What is truly appalling is the naive, credulous, gullible parade of politicians and their appointees, who have signed an oath to protect the people. BVI Airways, Power 52, CSC, cruise industry, should be no surprise, but watch out – the gambling industry is going to make these guys look like amateurs at ripping us off.
I agree a contract is a contract. In the contract, there was an oversight in which he was awarded 15 vacation days, holidays, and gratuity after completing the contract. He was informed that this was an oversight and agreed to not access the gratuity, but in the end, changed his mind and still accessed it anyway saying that he signed a contract and wants all that he is entitled to. Similarly, the Government could have and should have argued that he signed a contract and was entitled to deliver what he agreed to with his signature. Utter Nonsense!
Mr. Frett sometimes you just have to stop talking. You have no credibility on this issue. Terrible contract all around.
Projects should produce something tangible not suggestions.
Wilful ignorance!!!!!! Wrong contract template, vague contract overall. RUBBISH!
Th**f
“Te**f”
It was vague on purpose. And all the patriot he pretending to be… When he was told there was an “error” in his contract that giving him more than agreed to and asking him to not take it… What did he do!? Greedy and wutless the whole bunch of them… Then trying to convince the public that we must turn a blind eye to what we seeing and hearing… the argument not that it ain true… we must just ignore it because Britain is the real enemy!?… foh #BVILOVE
Accidentally signed the wrong contract.? Really ? No one in government worked out that it was the wrong contract , not even Albert?
And then they paid him the gratuity from the wrong contract.
There are two possibilities
Either these people who govern us are breathtakingly incompetent
Or
They knew exactly what they were doing.
Either way they must go.
The Premier was just doing a big supporter a big favour (cronyism).
What qualifications and experience this man has to successfully carry out such projects?
Has no one ever wondered why Politicians have to keep giving these large sums of unaccountable money to C. O. S-C. Hush money???
Taxpayer should sue hime and his enablers for non-performance and ineligible use of government fund.
Repose his house and spouse business and sell them all to reimburse the taxpayers. Nvi creating haves and have not. This guy is no worst than the street criminal. He’s just wear a suit.
please would the holy BISHOP shed some light on this PASTOR’S behavior, / thank you in advance ?