82 / 601
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Page
82
of
554
St. Ann Municipal Corporation Office of the Contractor General November 2017
Q:
….
Miss Hanniford has indicated on the contract where it
has description of work, where it says: Work done
throughout sections of New Hall, York Castle, York,
Bensonton, Corner Shop, Cross Roads – and it has two
areas: Drumley and Crowley. She says that the only
place she worked is Cross Roads, so she is saying this
all is not true. She says the only place she worked is
Cross Roads. When you look on the flip side of the
contract, she identifies her signature on the document –
Exhibit BH 2 – identifies her signature, but she was
paid $475,000 and the contract says, as I understand it
but you could tell me if its any different, that she did
$475,000 worth of work. She is saying I did not work in
the other areas.
So my round up before the question is
that this is not true, so she agreed that it is not true
that ‘I did $475,000 worth of work’.
So when we have a group payment that is made to her
for $475,000 worth of work, based on the
authorisation of Miss Munroe and instructions of the
MP, and the facilitation of the Parish Council, its
perpetuating a fraud because she admits – and this
contract is saying ‘work done’, it is signed by Alwyn
Brown: ‘work satisfactorily done’. But she said she
didn’t do this work. So we can understand now why I
am going in the direction of this group payment, all
the problems it creates from a legal standpoint.
So the question is now, after that long run-up:
What is
the sort of due diligence process that is exercised
internally whether by the internal auditor or
otherwise, to check that the descriptions are accurate