However, Auditor General Alastair Swarbrick did say that spending some $521,090 in public funds without approval from the Legislative Assembly was “not appropriate” and has referred the matter to the attorney general for further review.
If the attorney general’s office does nothing with the report, Mr. Swarbrick said he would consider what further actions he might take – including presenting his report to the Cayman Islands Anti-Corruption Commission.
“We reached a conclusion, if it’s not authorised, none of it should’ve happened in the first place,” Mr. Swarbrick said Wednesday.
In its review, the auditor general’s office did consider what criteria was used of the disbursement of that public money to private property and found there was “no clear, strong criteria used”.
“[However], in my perspective … it is not the key message. The message is that all of it was not authorised,” he said. Multiple attempts to contact Deputy Premier Juliana O’Connor-Connolly for this story proved fruitless. A spokesperson for Mrs. O’Connor-Connolly said she would have “no comment” on the matter.
Mr. Swarbrick also noted in his report that there was a potential conflict of interest in hiring National Roads Authority Chairman Colford Scott as the project manager for the paving effort.
“The NRA’s resources were diverted to Cayman Brac to do this,” he said. “There’s potential conflict of interest with his role as chairman of the NRA and project manager of this project.”
Mr. Swarbrick said he was concerned by the ministry’s response to his audit report.
“They see it as no problem in terms of paving the private parking lots,” he said. “If they say there’s nothing that specifically prevents them from doing that, there’s nothing that specifically prevents them from doing anything, from that perspective.
“All expenditures of government have to be authorised by the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly authorises for the maintenance and paving of public roads, not private parking lots. From my perspective, there’s no legal authority for doing that. From our perspective those issues are not covered … they’re not allowed under those laws.”
What the laws say
Section 15 of Cayman’s Anti-Corruption Law, 2008, makes it an offence to “negotiate appointments or dealing in offices”: “A person who receives, agrees to receive, gives or procures to be given, directly or indirectly, a loan, reward, advantage or other benefit as consideration for cooperation, assistance or exercise of influence to secure the appointment of any other person to a public office … commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment to a term of five years.”
Section 17 of the law creates offences for “abuse of office”: “A public officer or member of the Legislative Assembly who does or directs to be done, in abuse of the authority of his office, any arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of another commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term of two years.
“If the act … is done or directed to be done for purposes of a loan, reward, advantage or other benefit, such person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term of three years.”
Section 19 of the law addresses conflicts of interest: “Where a government entity of which a public officer or a member of the Legislative Assembly is a member, director or employee, proposes to deal with a company, partnership or other undertaking in which (i) the public officer; (ii) the member of the Legislative Assembly; (iii) a member of the family or an associate of either the public officer or member of the Legislative Assembly, has a direct or indirect interest and [that person] holds more than 10 per cent of the total issued share capital or of the total equity participation in such company, partnership or other undertaking …” the person must disclose that interest.
If that person has “a personal interest” in a decision which a government entity, of which the public officer or the member of the Legislative Assembly is a member, director or employee, is to take” the public officer or MLA must disclose that interest.
Anyone who fails to declare such an interest commits an offence under the law.
The Elections Law [2004 Revision] also sets out certain bribery offences. It applies to: “… every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives, lends or agrees to give or lend, or offers, promises or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure any money or valuable consideration to or for any elector, or to or for any person on behalf of any elector, or to or for any other person in order to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act as aforesaid on account of any elector having voted or refrained from voting at any election” commits an offence under the Elections Law.
Related Videos
It is easy and fun to spend other people’s money without getting approval.
Like I said in a previous article, it is much easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.
But I really get it now, the law does not explicitly say you can’t do it. So just do it.
Personally I think the conflict of interest story is the bigger issue. Kind of like the fox guarding the hen house. Also is there double-dipping in that equation?
I wonder, as I always say, follow the money.