Sunday, February 5 2012

We, quite frankly, are at a loss to give definitive opinions on all the matters surrounding the proposed contract to lease a small aircraft for police surveillance purposes. While there is an overriding sense of this being a large storm in a tiny teacup, the whole issue does beg some serious questions.

There appear to be at least three issues at play here:

The first is that the Commissioner of Police had the authority to incur the expenditure—some TT$900,000 for the three month trial period of surveillance. However, that did not, in our mind, necessarily confer upon him the power to establish what appears to be a new policy initiative without consulting his line minister.

The second issue is the suitability of the aircraft versus the suitability of helicopters, which could hover over a suspicious site.

And the third matter at question is the dispute between two “supplier companies” over who should have been granted the contract. This of course is peripheral to the questions of authority, policy and the suitability of the aircraft.

Police Commissioner Gibbs must be wondering why he took on this job. More than any other Commissioner in our country’s history, he is being micro-managed, publicly criticised and assessed by the Police Service Commission, the Attorney General, his own officers (through the Police Welfare Association), the opposition, and the public at large. And quite frankly, his performance to date, in a most difficult, hostile and unsupportive environment, does not merit this constant criticism.

But having said that, and the Commissioner knowing that every breath he takes is under minute scrutiny, how could he have entered into this surveillance aircraft contract without at least sharing the details with his superiors? And we do not consider his “superiors” to be the Police Service Commission nor the Police Complaints Authority. His superiors are the Minister of National Security and the Prime Minister in her capacity as Chair of the National Security Committee. Whatever the merits of a trial period, or of the new surveillance concept, and notwithstanding that he had the authority to enter into a contract of this value, Commissioner Gibbs displayed an unfortunate naivety in assuming that the merits of the trial period would be the sole, or even the major, concern of TT’s politics.

The decision to try this plane was a policy decision, and one of which the Cabinet should have been informed. The embarrassment imposed upon his employers is, in our view, more serious than the actual decision or the cost involved in that decision.

Having already reported to his boss, Minister John Sandy (and Sandy sent that Report to the Attorney General—for what we are not sure, for both Sandy and the AG have stated that Gibbs was within his rights), Commissioner Gibbs is also being hauled before the PSC and the PCA. What is their mandate in this matter, we wonder? If he had the authority to enter into this contract, they can only “charge” him with not informing his Minister of an action within his mandate. And this aspect should be dealt with by Minister Sandy.

We cannot comment on the suitability of the light plane versus the helicopter, because that raises technical issues of which we are not informed. However, we believe that the trial should be allowed to proceed, so that the effectiveness of the plane can be determined.

And we will not comment at this time on the rising dispute between the two competitive suppliers. This is becoming a standard in every government procurement attempt, and simply amplifies the ongoing calls for procurement reform at every level.