The T&T Electricity Commission (T&TEC) has engaged auditing firm Ernst and Young Ltd to conduct an investigation into claims that it flouted rules in order to facilitate former Attorney General Anand Ramlogan. In a release yesterday, the commission said the audit was being done to determine the veracity of allegations that the commission “flouted its rules, procedures and processes involving a transaction between the commission and the former attorney general.”
The audit was commissioned by the chairman of the board’s Audit Committee Aaron Henry and is being headed by the assistant general manager, engineering of the commission, Courtenay Mark. In an article on March 16, the Trinidad Express reported that T&TEC had flouted its rules for Ramlogan. The article named Ramlogan as one of several clients to benefit from the hefty reduction of contracting fees.
“T&TEC has commissioned this investigation in the interest of transparency and accountability, its adherence to procedural best practice and to remove any scepticism that may have arisen in the minds of the general public, and more particularly its customers, as a result of the allegations made in the article,” the release noted. The T&T Guardian obtained a copy of the terms of reference for the investigation, which instructs the firm to investigate how the costing for diversion works changed from $559,130.30 to $247,233.86.
The audit will also investigate whether disciplinary action was required or applicable in the situation and to make recommendations to improve processes.
Terms of reference
• To determine whether T&TEC’s Act, Chapter 54:70, as well as any of the commission’s rules, policies, procedures and general instructions, were breached under the following circumstances as it relates to pole relocation.
• Whether the application to the commission made by Azad Mohammed to relocate the commission’s infrastructure was undertaken by the owner or duly authorised agent.
•To determine as reported if the assistant general manager, distribution, Kelvin Ramsook, in 2011 had the requisite authority to send an e-mail correspondence to members of his divisional staff dated September 22, 2011 giving clarification as it relates to cost associated with pole relocation and if so was this conveyed to the Transmission Division.
• Whether the commission’s method of costing to complete the works at Estate Drive, Phillipine, for pole relocation should have been in line with GI FA 03/1208 as reported by the newspaper article.
• If GI FA03/1208 was in fact applicable in this transaction to determine whether the GI was altered to
a. benefit particular individuals/organisations,
b. was administered consistently and evenly,
c. was being administered in a transparent and accountable manner.
• To determine the circumstances under which the cost of $559,130.30 (plus vat) for diversion of the Penal-Phillipine 66kV circuit was changed to $247,233.86 (plus vat) and whether this was in keeping with T&TEC’s Act 54:70, Standard Operating Policies, Procedures and Practice.
• To determine whether the reduction in cost was properly assessed or whether there was a sinister motive to do so.
• To determine whether there was any person or persons who acted improperly and in contravention of T&TEC’s Act 54:70, policies rules, standard practices or general instructions and if so whether they can be held liable for disciplinary action.
• Whether preferential treatment was afforded to the customer in question.
• To make recommendations for the improvement of the process.