1

Algernon Cargill

8 Bristol Road Nassau East

PO Box EE-16855

Nassau Bahamas

Telephone 242-324-6556 ndash Email Algernonchotmailcom

14 May 2013

Dr James Moultrie

Chairman of the Board

The National Insurance Board

PO Box N-7508

Nassau Bahamas

Dear Chairman Moultrie

Re Preliminary Rebuttal to the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report

This letter is provided to confirm our scheduled meeting with the Board of Directors of the

National Insurance Board (NIB) and its legal counsel on Tuesday 14th

May 2013 at 4pm As

you are aware my attorneys Alfred Sears and Elliott Lockhart and their team will be attending

with me In addition this letter serves to fully apprise the NIB Board of Directors of the

following

1 The nature and purpose of the Judicial Review applied for 13th

May 2013

2 The lack of due process in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Review and

3 My preliminary rebuttal to the allegations and findings in the Grant Thornton NIB

Forensic Report

THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW

We are seeking an order of Certiorari to remove into the Court and quash the decision of the

Minister of Labour and National Insurance to appoint the accounting firm of Grant Thornton

Further we are seeking a declaration that the purported decision of the Minister of Labour and

National Insurance to appoint the accounting firm of Grant Thornton to conduct a forensic

review of the National Insurance Board amounts to a usurpation of the powers of the Board of

Directors of the National Insurance Board

Alternatively if Grant Thornton was properly appointed we are seeking a declaration that the

procedure followed by Grant Thornton in the conduct of the forensic review was biased unfair

irrational not in accordance with generally accepted practices in the conduct of forensic

investigations and in breach of the Rules of Natural Justice

2

THE LACK THE DUE PROCESS IN THE FORENSIC REVIEW CONDUCTED BY

GRANT THORNTON

Grant Thornton did not follow generally accepted practices in its forensic review of NIB Grant

Thornton did not engage me the key subject in this matter in an interview on the allegations in

the 8 November 2012 letter by Mr Gregory Moss former Chairman of NIB In November and

December of 2012 we contacted by email and letter Grant Thornton The primary purpose of our

correspondence was to advise that we were available and willing to assist in the forensic review

It was very important to me that I clear my reputation Given that I had filed a fairly detailed

affidavit which contained primarily my defense of the allegations in response to a 8 November

2012 letter by Gregory Moss that was leaked to the media I did not want to repeat the same

explanations to this letter in an interview with Grant Thornton We therefore in our

correspondence with them requested that they provide the full scope of the Forensic Audit and

the additional issues and questions that they would be seeking to address flowing from this audit

They did not respond

It was reported in the Nassau Guardian of Friday 1st February 2013 that Grant Thornton

intended to release its forensic report on Monday 4th

February 2013 Indeed it was stated in the

article that Grant Thornton was ldquoputting the finishing touches on the report into the accounts at

National Insurance Board (NIB) which will be presented to the Government by Monday [4th

February 2013]rdquoMr Paul Gomez the Managing Partner at Grant Thornton was quoted as

stating in this article that ldquothe Bahamian people will see exactly what happened and there isnrsquot

going to be any ambiguity because the facts are going to be laidrdquo Later that afternoon Mr

GomezGrant Thornton contacted my lawyers for the first time since the forensic review began

in November of 2012 Mr Gomez advised them that they were available to meet with me either

on Saturday morning (the next day) or Sunday the 2nd

or 3rd

February 2013 Mr Gomez stated

that they were prepared to meet with me on those days but did not address my request for a copy

of the terms of reference of the review and a list of issues to be covered during the meeting My

lawyers wrote a confirmatory email that afternoon that I was not available during that weekend

but was available on Thursday 7th

February 2013 to assist them in their review My lawyers also

reminded Mr Gomez that we had not as yet been provided with the requested terms of reference

and list of issues that he wished to have me address Mr Gomez in his reply by email that

evening stated in part that the auditors had no questions for me at that time but that I

could meet with them to ask them questions

On the 5th

February 2013 my attorneys wrote Mr Paul Gomez Managing Partner of Grant

Thornton reminding them the I was available and willing to assist Grant Thornton in its review

of NIB and also of my request to be provided with a list of issues to be covered in an interview to

enable me to prepare for and bring any relevant documents to the proposed interview and the

terms of reference for the forensic investigation We did not receive a reply to this letter

On the 8th

February 2013 my lawyers received a letter of the same date from Thomas Evans

QC acting on behalf of Grant Thornton providing the terms of the engagement namely an

3

examination of (1) the contents of the letter of Mr Gregory Moss dated the 8th

November 2012

and (2) the contents of my Affidavit dated the 27th

November 2012 The letter also disclosed

that at some unspecified time the terms were expanded to include the Sandilands Project and

Bonuses approvalsalary increases of Executive Management during the years 2008 through

2012 The letter further stated that I would be asked to respond to the allegations contained in

the letter of the 8th

November 2012 and to assist with the other matters

My lawyers replied to Mr Thomas Evans by letter dated the 12th

February 2013 and asked

whether there were any specific questions or issues that had arisen in the course of the

investigation that Grant Thornton wishes to engage me and that upon receipt of his response I

was willing to meet with Grant Thornton along with my lawyer and consultant forensic expert at

a mutually convenient time to which we did not receive a response

That notwithstanding my lawyers requests since the 28th

November 2012 that I was available to

be interviewed in order to address any outstanding issues or questions not addressed in my

affidavit the accountants refused to provide me with questions but provided written questions to

other employees of the National Insurance Board prior to the interview of those persons

PRELIMINARY REBUTTALTO THE ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS

In summary I found all the allegations to be shallow and without merit All the allegations were

thoroughly addressed in my affidavit of November 20 2012 I also found the findings of Grant

Thornton to be biased and incomplete

I apologize if any part of this preliminary response is not clear as I was given a short time of less

than two (2) weeks to respond to a Forensic Report that was completed over five (5) months

Further it is my intention to support every rebuttal point in this letter with documentary

evidence as the legal process may require when necessary I think it is unfair for any person or

Grant Thornton to consider and conclude that the any one employee at NIB could possess the

power and control to act outside and independent of the internal controls and set procedures at

NIB

Given the short time allowed since receipt of Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report to provide a

response my rebuttal letter is preliminary in nature and I have not had the opportunity to review

all the allegations and findings presented in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report nor have I had

the time to respond in full and complete detail to all of the matters raised in this rebuttal As

such the rebuttal provided is based on what I have had the opportunity to review andor analyse

in the Forensic Report to date It may be that had I had more time to conduct a more complete

review of the Forensic Report I would have reached different or additional conclusions in my

defence The extent there may be different and additional conclusions cannot be known until

such further review is performed by me

4

Allegation 1 ndash The Sandyport Contract

My letter to Gregory Moss dated October 9 2012 (copy attached and numbered Exhibit 1) and

corroborating confirmation from Patrick Ward (copy attached and numbered Exhibit 2)

confirm the actual events that transpired I am not in a position to respond to any of the

conjecture andor assumptions made by Grant Thornton in the report as I only became aware of

the lease and rental of the apartment on February 26 2010 when the matter was referred to me

by Raymond Wells Until this time the entire process was managed by the Information

Technology Department (IT) under Mr Wellsrsquo leadership and I have already confirmed and

corroborated that he executed the lease he approved the apartment rental and he was present

when I telephoned Patrick Ward and received the approval after full disclosure was made to

Patrick Ward Full disclosure entailed information that the company that executed the lease Jes-

El-Car Ltd was beneficially owned by my brother Godwin Cargill and the due diligence

reported to me by Mr Wells that his employee Gail Carey utilized in recommending this unit

over the other units inspected Further based on the information provided in the Grant Thornton

NIB Forensic Report it is apparent that a transparent process occurred and a competitive pricing

analysis was undertaken by the IT Department led by Raymond Wells in the search and

selection of the apartment and execution of the lease document

I also confirmed that during a subsequent meeting that Patrick Ward and I had with former Prime

Minister Hubert Ingraham that the rental of the apartment was again fully disclosed

Gail Carey the IT Department employee that managed the securing of permanent residence for

the AIS team has also confirmed in writing and during her interview that prior to the rental of

the apartment and payment to the lessor Jes-El-Car Ltd that she has had no direct or indirect

communication with me about the apartment nor did she express any concern to me Her

communications were with her supervisor Raymond Wells and armed with this information

together with the transparent process followed by Ms Carey as well as the pricing and unit

comparisons together with the reported increased safety element of Sandyport viz a viz

Delaporte Point he approved the rental under the delegated authority he had for managing the

project costs which is the exact authority he had to approve the hotel rental costs for AIS during

their stay in temporary housing

Gregory Mossrsquo allegations that Ms Velma Thompson (a cousin of mine and an employee of

NIB) coincidentally received a telephone call from her sister Maggie etc is without merit

particularly as neither he nor the Grant Thornton team interviewed Ms Thompson Had they

interviewed her she could have confirmed that she is a distant cousin of mine and at no time

prior to the apartment rental and even to this day has she had any discussion with me about the

rental of the Sandyport Apartment

The following bullet points summarize the comments noted immediately above by me

5

The Information Technology (IT) department had full responsibility for the

management of the AIS Contract and this contract included a provision for NIB to

pay for housing costs It is a standard practice for departments and their heads to be

responsible for all cost activities related to their departments

That Mr Raymond Wells Deputy Director IT had the full responsibility for this

contract and his project budget that was approved by the Board of Directors included

housing costs for the AIS Team

That Mr Wells initially approved hotel accommodations for the team and later at

AISrsquo request requested his assistant to secure permanent housing

That the recommendations for hotel and permanent housing were managed

exclusively by Mr Raymond Wells and his team and during this process until the

request for payment was referred to me I had neither involvement nor knowledge of

the process - Mr Wellsrsquo statement and that of his assistant Gail Carey verify this

statement

That I have had no communication with Ms Gail Carey about the rental of the

apartment or with Velma Thompson

That at the time Mr Raymond Wells referred the Payment Request to me on February

26th

which was dated February 25th

I recognized that the name of the company that

the apartment was leased from was that of my brotherrsquos company Jes-El-Car Ltd I

recognized the name as the name is that of my brotherrsquos 3 children ndash Jessica Elliott

and Carla Cargill

I disclosed this to Mr Wells and together on February 26 2012 we telephoned Mr

Patrick Ward explained the circumstances and secured his approval as Chairman of

the Board to proceed with the Lease that was already executed (Mr Patrick Wardrsquos

interview statement to Grant Thornton and his letter to me dated October 11 2012

confirm his awareness and approval of the transaction)

Only after receipt of Mr Wardrsquos approval was the request for payment authorized by

me

It should be noted that the AIS Contract was a ldquocost plus expensesrdquo contract NIBrsquos

Management led directly by Raymond Wells not myself had the fiduciary responsibility to

control costs and secondly the legal responsibility to secure housing for the AIS personnel

whom Mr Wells had approved accommodations for at the Hilton Hotel also without my direct

approval Moreover at their request and reportedly for convenience purposes they requested

that they ldquoimmediatelyrdquo be relocated from the Hilton Hotel to apartment style housing Using

6

the authority delegated to him as the Project Manager and Sponsor for the National Prescription

Drug Plan he approved this project cost as a part of his budget that he fully and independently

controlled

Although Grant Thornton has stated in its Forensic Report that they did not find where Raymond

Wells had the authority to control costs for this project the excerpt from the AIS contract below

explains Mr Wellsrsquo Delegated Authority

Section 3

(a) NIB shall provide airfare accommodation and US$7500 PER DIEM for out of

pocket expenses for all of AISrsquos technical personnel during the implementation

phase and thereafter whenever NIB requests such services

The question of authority to enter the contract was based on the full amount paid over the entire

lease period and although this fell into the entire project budget approved by the Board of

Directors and managed by Mr Wells it excludes the fact that his analysis and decision inputs

were based on the monthly cost viz a viz a similar cost in the hotel for all potential occupants

It should be noted that NIBrsquos Accounts Department led by Sonia Gill acted independently in

approving rental payments for this unit and at no time at the execution of the initial payment

approval by myself or directly to me afterwards is there any documented communication from

Mrs Gill to me expressing any concern with regards to this apartment All communication was

directed by her to Mr Raymond Wells the IT Executive who executed the lease and managed

the entire process Additionally Mrs Gill confirmed to Grant Thornton that there was no policy

to govern this transaction and if this is the case it is not clear what policy I or Raymond Wells

violated Grant Thornton appears to be ldquostretchingrdquo to arrive at a conclusion that has been

elucidated by me in my October 9 2012 communication to Mr Gregory Moss

The comparisons with the Delaporte Apartment indicate a 48 differential in cost This is not a

true comparison as it ignores the requirements of NIB in respect of the apartment the advantages

of the Sandyport Apartment and the inputs Ms Gail Carey used in declaring to the Board of

Directors that in her view the Sandyport apartment was superior in many ways to the Delaporte

apartment In reality both were not comparable as the Delaporte apartment consisted of 2

bedrooms and 1 frac12 bathrooms whereas the Sandyport apartment had 3 bedrooms and 3 frac12

bathrooms which would accommodate a mix of male and female occupants more comfortably

and privately Moreover this input by Grant Thornton ignores the fact that neither of the units

appear to have been independently inspected by their firm to confirm that Ms Careyrsquos decision

inputs were valid

The written statements made by realtors Mr Pat Strachan and Mr William Wong are

contradictory (See appendices 144 and 145) however Grant Thornton summarizes in its report

that both realtors arrived at the same conclusion with regards the Sandyport Apartment costs

Specifically Mr Strachan stated the apartment rate was not within industry standards while Mr

Wong contends the cost was a reasonable one In fact Mr Wong stated in his January 21 2013

7

letter that the cost of electricity was a fair amount because the chance that the tenants will

constantly run central air the electricity bill could be much higher It is curious that this

information was misrepresented in the Grant Thornton report

It is disingenuous and misleading for Grant Thornton to not consider and include as

corroborating and validating points the disclosure made in Patrick Wardrsquos Grant Thornton

interview and corroborating letter that he approved the Sandyport lease and the business reasons

he used as inputs in his decision making process

It should have been considered that once Patrick Ward acting as Chairman of the National

Insurance Board approved the lease of the apartment it was his responsibility to advise the

Board of this approval if he considered it was required and not me This is reiterated in

Cadburyrsquos report of best practices in Corporate Governance It is the Chairmanrsquos responsibility

to ensure that all relevant issues are on the agenda

I attest that I approved only the processing of the payment after I had received the approval of

the lease executed by Raymond Wells from Mr Patrick Ward It was inappropriate for Grant

Thornton to state that Patrick Wardrsquos corroborating letter was an ldquoattempt to create a paper trailrdquo

rather than to confirm in writing what he conveyed personally to the firm during his interview ndash

that he as Chairman of the Board of Directors ultimately approved the apartment lease

I approved the processing of the payment after I had made the full disclosure to Mr Ward in the

presence of Mr Wells and did not participate in the decision making process in regards to the

selection of the Sandyport Apartment lease with my brotherrsquos wholly owned company Jes-El-

Car Ltd

Grant Thornton advises at point 1a in its communication to Marco Rolle dated March 22 2013

that I approved the lease of the Sandyport apartment on ldquoFebruary 20 2010rdquo without the Board

of Directors approval Please provide the evidence used to support firstly the date of such

approval and the allegation that I approved the lease I again affirm that the lease was approved

by Raymond Wells and executed by him The payment was approved by me after I secured the

approval of Mr Patrick Ward the Chairman of the Board of Directors in the presence of

Raymond Wells due to the potential conflict

With regards the allegation of non-disclosure in the Related PartyConflict of Interest Disclosure

form of my appointment as a Director and Vice President of Jes-El-Car Ltd at the time the lease

was executed at the time NIB Disclosure Forms were executed and at the time of my interview

with the Board of Directors I was not aware that I had been appointed by my brother Godwin

Cargill as a Director and Officer of his company In fact the legal test of a conflict of interest

and NIBrsquos policy is whether or not I stood to gain any financial benefit as a result of the conflict

and in this instance I did not My brotherrsquos confirmatory sworn affidavit that was prepared by

Davis and Co the registered office for his company attests to this It should be noted that Grant

Thornton excluded from their Forensic Report the fact that Paul Andy Gomez was formally

advised by Davis amp Corsquos Managing Partner Phillip McKenzie on January 24 2013 ie at least

8

three months prior to finalization of the Forensic Report that Godwin Cargill owned 100 of the

shares of Jes-El-Car Ltd The corroborating statement from Davis amp Co that is now attached to

this communication labeled as Exhibit 3 An excerpt from the Corporate file of Jes-El-Car Ltd

maintained by Davis and Co together with the corroborating statement from Phillip McKenzie

confirm that I have never attended any corporate meetings or signed any company documents

and that I do not own any shares in the company and further that I was not present when the

company was incorporated and there is no evidence in their file that I have participated in any

way either directly or indirectly in the affairs of the company (Exhibit 3)

Although Grant Thornton was aware of this exculpatory information and yet excluded it from the

Forensic Report the firm did include in its Forensic Report who the shareholders and beneficial

owners of the company 700 Islands and Kenuthrsquos Electric Company Ltd were thereby

demonstrating their awareness of the importance ownership is in the test of a Conflict of Interest

I feel that as a result of these apparently deliberate actions acted in a prejudicial manner in

arriving at a conclusion of the facts presented with regards this allegation

Grant Thornton has also ignored in its Forensic Report that the conflict of interest with regards to

the Sandyport apartment was disclosed by Gail Carey in her memo to Raymond Wells dated

March 1 2010 This was in accordance with Point 6 ndash Conflicts of Interest policy statement

page 4 This is very concerning

With regards point 1f) and 2d) Grant Thornton should produce the NIB disclosure forms for the

three years referenced December 31 2010 to December 31 2012 Further according to

International Accounting Standards the cost of the rental expense viz a viz the total expenses of

$160 million on average during this period would not be deemed material and therefore not

included in the Financial Statements in any form of disclosure

In fact PricewaterhouseCoopers explained in its Related Party Clarification note to me with

regards the disclosures made by Patrick Ward re the Bahamas First matter- NIBrsquos Property

Insurance Expense of $15 million annually ldquoIt is important to draw distinction between

financial reporting requirements and best practices management information required by those

charged with governance Transactions with entities influenced by key management personnel

including directors is of significance to those charged with governance and a process has been

established to ensure that such information is brought to the attention of those charged with

governance Financial reporting requires disclosure regarding those transactions which would

influence the decision of users of the financial statements and hence as set out in IAS 24

consideration should be given to significance (the transactions referred) and to whether the

transaction significantly impacts the financial performance or position of the Fund whether or

not done at armrsquos length (we observe that there was a tendering process carried out for general

insurance contracts in accordance with NIBrsquos tendering policyrdquo whether or not outside ordinary

course of business (propertycasualty insurance is required given the extent of properties owned

and managed) and reporting lines for approval (significant contracts required Board Approval

9

which was given) None of the aforementioned factors were present and hence do not require

greater disclosure than provided by management in the consolidated statementsrdquo

The materiality of the Sandyport monthly contract is insignificant in respect of NIBrsquos financial

statements as a whole and the corresponding disclosure requirements Had the additional

disclosure been made it was immaterial to the Financial Statements Moreover a disclosure on

my appointment by my brother to his holding (not operating company) could not have been

made as I was not aware of this appointment at the time of the execution of the lease

With regards point 1g) the minutes referenced October 28 2010 re NIB Cases for Prosecution

this was after the apartment had been rented Further Mr Gregory Collie who managed

compliance on behalf of the Board will confirm that his account was entirely in good standing at

the time of the rental in 2010 and 2011 and the inclusion in the Prosecution Report was an error

by NIB Moreover it was not my responsibility to check or confirm that National Insurance

arrears do not exist and in this case this requirement should have been met by Gail Carey andor

Raymond Wells

In summary this forensic report does not support the serious allegations made in Gregory Mossrsquo

November 8 letter specifically dereliction of duty gross misconduct insubordination gross

negligence and conflict of interest There are absolutely no facts to support any of these

allegations and leads to the conclusion that this allegation has no basis and is not supported with

the facts discovered throughout the forensic investigation conducted

Enclosures 1 - 8

1 Davis amp Co Letter to Paul Andy Gomez Managing Partner Grant Thornton dated

January 24 2013

2 Davis amp Co supplemental letter to Sears and Co dated May 10 2013 and corroborating

Affidavit of Godwin Cargill

3 Declarations of Beneficial Interest in Jes El Car Ltd by Tootsie V Hunter and Debbie

Michelle Gilbert

4 Resolution of the First Meeting of Jes-El-Car Ltd dated June 7 2000 ndash noting that

Algernon Cargill was not present All subsequent resolutions confirm that Algernon

Cargill was not present at any of these meetings

5 Resolutions of Borrowing Authority by Jes-El-Car Ltd ndash Algernon Cargill was not named

in any of these nor was he present at the time these resolutions were executed

6 Related Party Explanation by Gowon Bowe Partner PricewaterhouseCoopers

7 Letter of October 9 2012 by me to Mr Gregory Moss on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

8 Letter of October 11 2012 by Patrick Ward to me on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

10

Allegation 2 ndash The Bahamas First Insurance Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings do not relate to my actions and my Affidavit filed in the Supreme

Court actually has very serious allegations on the conduct of Gregory Moss with regards this

matter

11

Allegation 3 ndash The Kenuthrsquos Electric Issue

Gregory Moss reported and Grant Thornton substantiated that the records of NIB confirm that

the sum of $209361982 was paid directly to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work performed on NIB

properties during the period 9th

December 2008 to 29th

August 2012 According to my

preliminary analysis this amount was $1062360 and according to the Grant Thornton Forensic

Report the Financial Controller also advised on page 80 at point 32 (b) that the amount of

$209361982 does not agree with NIBrsquos records Further Grant Thornton should deduct the

approved payments to Mr Knowles that NIB made on behalf of General Contractors that were

approved by the Project consultants and contractors and recorded as a project disbursement and

the amounts for direct NIB contracts andor the Ministry of Tourism project thereafter the

analysis would then confirm that the amount paid to Mr Knowles for the period 2008-2012

would be in the range of $500000 Moreover I am advised that the rates charged by this

company are within market rates and secondly are less than the rates that NIB is currently being

billed for electrical and air-conditioning services Current invoices reflect a fixed rate of $125

per hour and according to Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report Kenuthrsquos Electric rates were

$3303 to $10505 per hour Moreover further analysis by Grant Thornton would have

confirmed that these rates were not per employee as is the current case at NIB but were for a

minimum of 2 employees dispatched to NIB by the company

With regard to item 32(d) finding that the completion of the installation of parking lot lights at

the Poinciana Hill Building is the only contract found where Kenuthrsquos Electric was engaged by

NIB is inaccurate This work was approved by the Ministry of Health through a tender process

and Purchase Orders (a contract) were issued to Mr Knowles for several other works at NIB that

were recommended by NIB personnel other than me For example the IT Cabling to replace

the wireless financial network was approved by the IT Department the Electrical Upgrade to

NIBrsquos Head Office to facilitate the renovations to the property were approved by the Buildings

Division and any interview of these Department heads would confirm this Notwithstanding it

should be noted that the quantum of work at NIB Head Quarters would appear significant as the

premises were upgraded department by department over the past four (4) years to avoid any

interruption to key services and secondly the IT infrastructure had to be replaced as transactions

in the wireless environment were dropping and financial records were being compromised In

summary Grant Thornton who should be aware that a Purchase Order is a binding agreement

had sight of the Purchase Orders for the IT Networking the installation of the NIB HQ

Lightening Arrestor the details of the direct disbursements made to Kenuthrsquos Electric on behalf

of contractors and the details of all project works including the Ministry of Tourism project and

chose to not include these important facts in its Forensic Report analysis of payments made to

Kenuthrsquos Electric With regards to Grant Thorntonrsquos Findings on page 81 at point 33 and the

misrepresentations by Gregory Moss in his November 8 letter to Shane Gibson the following

clarifying points that Grant Thornton had reviewed and again chose to not clarify in its Forensic

12

Report should be noted

a $22225 - The 50 payment is due in part to the approved purchase order

POPON2M0900080 for the installation of Network cabling for the IT Department

which is supported by an in house requisition form In other words a binding contract

was evident

b $500676 - The purported finding that the new lightening protection system as installed

was completed without the involvement of a Consulting Engineer is inaccurate Kenuthrsquos

Electric would have been required to consult a Certified UL Consultant and or vendor in

order to provide the required lightening protection equipment (grounding copper cables

only from the pole to designated areas) Please also note that to date there are no local

person and or vendor that meets this criteria and the company consulted their USA

supplier for guidance and technical advice and guidance

c $1030534 - The variation in labor rates is a direct result to the level of

Technicianskilled company representative that completed the work Industry standard

rates are normally between $30 - $125 depending upon the level of the vendor

representative completing the tasks on behalf of the engaged company Further NIB is

currently paying rates of $125 per hour for electrical and air-condition works and is

shockingly now using the same electrical contractors the same air-condition contractors

and the same engineers for works on NIBrsquos properties and in most cases without any

tender documents at the time the work is awarded

d This finding is incorrect misleading and appears deliberately false as Grant Thornton

had unrestricted access to all of NIBrsquos records The cost of $880000 was related to the

installation of the lightning arrestor pole at the Head Quarters Building which included

the use of crane services to install the 45ft tapered pole that was designed by a USA

Vendor at the same standard of the Lightening Arrestor at the Miami International

Airport

e The reported finding that $1495875 was expended for specialty crane services is false

The amount of $1495875 was the balance payment due to Kenuthrsquos Electric for the

procurement and installation of the lightening arrestor rod This project was awarded to

Kenuthrsquos Electric following the submission of bids from at least three (3) vendors

including Kenuthrsquos Electric

f Again the statement the amount totaling $1111934 was the culmination of ONLY three

(3) invoices is false and inaccurate The payment of $1111934 included payments of six

(6) invoices to complete networking infrastructure in various buildings and departments

With regard to labour rates please refer to explanation in item (d)

g The hours worked noted was for the disconnection of data lines whips and feeders from

the existing cubicles and to relocate and reconnect the same in newly installed pre-

owned cubicle sections not having the service connections (data and power) properly

13

connected to the units but rather in boxes located in the shipping trailer Kenuthrsquos Electric

was then required to retrieve these items and accurately match the same to the cubicle

sections that were installed by another vendor Additionally in some cases new

additional power and or data lines were required to be installed within the office areas to

accommodate the cubicle sections The work was completed in the Central Benefits

Department and Inspectorate Department and Kenuthrsquos Electric was authorized to

proceed by the IT and Buildings department Again all works are related to the

installation of networking cabling infrastructure

With regards the findings that start of page 84 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report the

following should be noted

33 (b) (i) The labor rates within the invoices are consistent with industry standard labor

rates depending upon the level of the technicianworkman completing the relevant task

As noted above NIB is now paying without question labour rates of $125 for electrical

and air-conditioning work and in most cases these works are not being tendered at the

time of their award

For point 33 (b) (ii) It is highly unlikely that the Accounting Department of NIB would

honor payment for services without the submission of an invoice from a vendor This

statement is misleading and not consistent with the Accounting practices of NIB and

reflects on yet another attempt by Grant Thornton to suggest wrongdoing on the part of

NIB More due diligence is required by Grant Thornton and the statement is an attempt

to cast further aspersions on my character and reputation particularly as Grant Thornton

is fully or should be fully aware of the independent process employed by the Accounting

Department in approving any invoice for payment

For point 33(b) (iii) The statement that Graphite Engineering did not validate the

corrective works at the Ministry of Tourism project is wholly inaccurate and borders on

being reckless and again appears to be deliberately misleading In fact Grant Thornton

and Shane Gibson were purposely advised by NIBrsquos Buildings Department of the process

followed with regards the Ministry of Tourism corrective works performed by another

electrical contractor Kenuthrsquos Electric was required to remediate this work that was

previously approved and certified for payment by the Ministry of Works during the

original construction of the complex in 2005-2007

NIB contracted Graphite Engineering Ltd principal Sonia Brown to identify the

remedial work required in order that the final electrical inspection could be provided by

the Ministry of Works This is very similar to the current situation wherein NIB has

contracted Henry Storr Electric on the same contractual basis that Kenuthrsquos Electric was

contracted Graphite Engineering is a very reputable MEP Engineering firm and is

currently completing additional Engineering Services for two of NIBrsquos major projects

the mini hospitals in Abaco and Exuma Graphite Engineeringrsquos reports are available in

14

NIBrsquos file and will confirm their analysis of the remedial work required and certification

of all works completed according to the Bahamas Electrical Code prior to advancing to

NIB for payment

In addition to Graphite Engineeringrsquos certification NIB contracted Construction Cost

Engineering Services Ltd to certify the cost of every payment for work completed after

Graphite Engineering had confirmed that the work had been completed to their

specifications and satisfaction All invoices were certified by Quantity Surveyors

Construction Cost Engineering prior to any recommendation for payment by NIBrsquos

building department not by me

Grant Thornton had sight of this information all certifications by Graphite and

Construction Cost and elected to not include it in its summary report This is very

curious and shocking

Further under Graphitersquo supervision and direction the estimation of 3 ndash 4 weeks to

complete the remedial works was consistent with their initial scope as noted within their

report which also indicated that their recommendations were solely based upon what

should have been seen and not any defects that were hidden Moreover The Bahamas

Building Code requires that all exit points be adequately designated by illuminated exit

signs in corridors of commercial buildings At the time while Kenuthrsquos Electric was

completing the electrical remedial works it was advised to them by the consultants that

there were no exit signs installed and this is a key requirement for the final inspection

certificate from the Ministry of Works Additionally the cost of electric illuminated exit

signs ranges from $2500 - $3500 per sign excluding installation Further the ldquofindingsrdquo

by Grant Thornton that the Kenuthrsquos Electric billed $30000 for the supply or emergency

lights ballasts exit lights signs and bulbs shows a lack of thoroughness and

completeness in the firmrsquos analysis

For point 33(b)(iv) It is also shocking that Grant Thornton has reported that NO

contracts regarding the SRC Project were available for their review and if this is indeed

the case how could the firm provide any findings of fact with regards the erroneous and

misleading findings in this regard For this reason any statement or finding provided

regarding this project within their report is considered highly speculative and should be

excluded until the firm has reviewed the contracts that are still resident within NIB

Likewise the statement that there was no practical explanation of how CTrsquos on a large

electrical system upgrade could have been overlooked is a good question and should have

been answered readily by Grant Thorntonrsquos own Consultant Applied Consultants amp

Engineers (Dennis Nairn of ACE) This company ACE Dennis Nairn whom Grant

Thornton has reportedly contracted as an ldquoexpertrdquo in the field of electrical works was the

supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for the ldquolarge electrical systemrdquo at the Sandilands project

and it was this company not Kenuthrsquos Electric who despite being paid in full by

Kenuthrsquos Electric for the supply of the Square D system including CTs had shockingly

15

not included it in its order and supply and subsequently delayed the project by several

weeks Dennis Nairn of ACE was required to provide the required CTrsquos for this project

and instead only provided the CT Cabinet although the CTrsquos were in fact noted on the

design documents It baffles the mind that ACE is now acting as an agent of Grant

Thornton when they were the main supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for this project and

didnrsquot perform then Unbelievable

Findings at point 35

1 The direct payment to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work completed on the SRC Project was

authorized by the Contractor and Consultants attached to the formal payment request

The subsequent allegations being made by Shane Gibson in the media with regards the

Exuma Project are deliberately false and reckless There is absolutely no evidence to

confirm his allegations that I telephoned the contractor for the Exuma Mini Hospital and

demanded that he award the contract to Kenuthrsquos Electric Mr Gibson should review the

information in NIBrsquos files including the Board of Directors minutes and the

memorandums of the Director to determine the determination of the Board of Directors

and not assert opinions that can be easily verified to be inaccurate and baseless The facts

are

a NIB Board of Directors agreed to standardize all sub-contractors for the

Abaco and Exuma Hospital ie Electrical Plumbing and Air-condition

b The Architect MEP Engineers and Civil and Structural Engineers were also

standardized as the projects were a duplicate of each other and the Board

considered that for greater efficiency and because of ongoing experiences

with the Sandilands and Ministry of Tourism projects that they wanted a

problem free job and decided to standardize the entire team with the exception

of the General Contractor

c The electrical contractor nominated by the contractor did not have any

experience with any medical facilities or similar facilities did not have an

independent operationbusiness and based on Osbourne Moxeyrsquos analysis did

not appear to have the experience to complete this job ndash please also note NIB

ongoing experience with the Ministry of Tourism building that has had

several electrical fires and this slipshod electrical work was top of mind by

NIBrsquos Project Manager when he and the project consultants recommended

that we standardize all sub-contractors

d Osbourne Moxey and I together spoke with the General Contractor and

outlined the Boardrsquos requirements and advised the contractor that our job was

to advise what the Board had recommended and at the end of the day he was

free to make any decision that he wanted An interview with the General

Contractor could only confirm this statement and nothing else At this point I

16

will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media

by Minister Gibson particularly as these have not been included in the Grant

Thornton report notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have

It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntonrsquos several interviews with NIBrsquos Project Manager

and NIBrsquos Property Managers there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way

that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuthrsquos Electric exclusively In fact it is Osbourne

Moxeyrsquos professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several

occasions to NIBrsquos Board of Directors Minister Gibson and other NIB employees that it was

preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board

complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems but compromising of

our already delicate electrical infrastructure I am therefore confused that the works performed

by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my

behalf particularly I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or

mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

3

examination of (1) the contents of the letter of Mr Gregory Moss dated the 8th

November 2012

and (2) the contents of my Affidavit dated the 27th

November 2012 The letter also disclosed

that at some unspecified time the terms were expanded to include the Sandilands Project and

Bonuses approvalsalary increases of Executive Management during the years 2008 through

2012 The letter further stated that I would be asked to respond to the allegations contained in

the letter of the 8th

November 2012 and to assist with the other matters

My lawyers replied to Mr Thomas Evans by letter dated the 12th

February 2013 and asked

whether there were any specific questions or issues that had arisen in the course of the

investigation that Grant Thornton wishes to engage me and that upon receipt of his response I

was willing to meet with Grant Thornton along with my lawyer and consultant forensic expert at

a mutually convenient time to which we did not receive a response

That notwithstanding my lawyers requests since the 28th

November 2012 that I was available to

be interviewed in order to address any outstanding issues or questions not addressed in my

affidavit the accountants refused to provide me with questions but provided written questions to

other employees of the National Insurance Board prior to the interview of those persons

PRELIMINARY REBUTTALTO THE ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS

In summary I found all the allegations to be shallow and without merit All the allegations were

thoroughly addressed in my affidavit of November 20 2012 I also found the findings of Grant

Thornton to be biased and incomplete

I apologize if any part of this preliminary response is not clear as I was given a short time of less

than two (2) weeks to respond to a Forensic Report that was completed over five (5) months

Further it is my intention to support every rebuttal point in this letter with documentary

evidence as the legal process may require when necessary I think it is unfair for any person or

Grant Thornton to consider and conclude that the any one employee at NIB could possess the

power and control to act outside and independent of the internal controls and set procedures at

NIB

Given the short time allowed since receipt of Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report to provide a

response my rebuttal letter is preliminary in nature and I have not had the opportunity to review

all the allegations and findings presented in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report nor have I had

the time to respond in full and complete detail to all of the matters raised in this rebuttal As

such the rebuttal provided is based on what I have had the opportunity to review andor analyse

in the Forensic Report to date It may be that had I had more time to conduct a more complete

review of the Forensic Report I would have reached different or additional conclusions in my

defence The extent there may be different and additional conclusions cannot be known until

such further review is performed by me

4

Allegation 1 ndash The Sandyport Contract

My letter to Gregory Moss dated October 9 2012 (copy attached and numbered Exhibit 1) and

corroborating confirmation from Patrick Ward (copy attached and numbered Exhibit 2)

confirm the actual events that transpired I am not in a position to respond to any of the

conjecture andor assumptions made by Grant Thornton in the report as I only became aware of

the lease and rental of the apartment on February 26 2010 when the matter was referred to me

by Raymond Wells Until this time the entire process was managed by the Information

Technology Department (IT) under Mr Wellsrsquo leadership and I have already confirmed and

corroborated that he executed the lease he approved the apartment rental and he was present

when I telephoned Patrick Ward and received the approval after full disclosure was made to

Patrick Ward Full disclosure entailed information that the company that executed the lease Jes-

El-Car Ltd was beneficially owned by my brother Godwin Cargill and the due diligence

reported to me by Mr Wells that his employee Gail Carey utilized in recommending this unit

over the other units inspected Further based on the information provided in the Grant Thornton

NIB Forensic Report it is apparent that a transparent process occurred and a competitive pricing

analysis was undertaken by the IT Department led by Raymond Wells in the search and

selection of the apartment and execution of the lease document

I also confirmed that during a subsequent meeting that Patrick Ward and I had with former Prime

Minister Hubert Ingraham that the rental of the apartment was again fully disclosed

Gail Carey the IT Department employee that managed the securing of permanent residence for

the AIS team has also confirmed in writing and during her interview that prior to the rental of

the apartment and payment to the lessor Jes-El-Car Ltd that she has had no direct or indirect

communication with me about the apartment nor did she express any concern to me Her

communications were with her supervisor Raymond Wells and armed with this information

together with the transparent process followed by Ms Carey as well as the pricing and unit

comparisons together with the reported increased safety element of Sandyport viz a viz

Delaporte Point he approved the rental under the delegated authority he had for managing the

project costs which is the exact authority he had to approve the hotel rental costs for AIS during

their stay in temporary housing

Gregory Mossrsquo allegations that Ms Velma Thompson (a cousin of mine and an employee of

NIB) coincidentally received a telephone call from her sister Maggie etc is without merit

particularly as neither he nor the Grant Thornton team interviewed Ms Thompson Had they

interviewed her she could have confirmed that she is a distant cousin of mine and at no time

prior to the apartment rental and even to this day has she had any discussion with me about the

rental of the Sandyport Apartment

The following bullet points summarize the comments noted immediately above by me

5

The Information Technology (IT) department had full responsibility for the

management of the AIS Contract and this contract included a provision for NIB to

pay for housing costs It is a standard practice for departments and their heads to be

responsible for all cost activities related to their departments

That Mr Raymond Wells Deputy Director IT had the full responsibility for this

contract and his project budget that was approved by the Board of Directors included

housing costs for the AIS Team

That Mr Wells initially approved hotel accommodations for the team and later at

AISrsquo request requested his assistant to secure permanent housing

That the recommendations for hotel and permanent housing were managed

exclusively by Mr Raymond Wells and his team and during this process until the

request for payment was referred to me I had neither involvement nor knowledge of

the process - Mr Wellsrsquo statement and that of his assistant Gail Carey verify this

statement

That I have had no communication with Ms Gail Carey about the rental of the

apartment or with Velma Thompson

That at the time Mr Raymond Wells referred the Payment Request to me on February

26th

which was dated February 25th

I recognized that the name of the company that

the apartment was leased from was that of my brotherrsquos company Jes-El-Car Ltd I

recognized the name as the name is that of my brotherrsquos 3 children ndash Jessica Elliott

and Carla Cargill

I disclosed this to Mr Wells and together on February 26 2012 we telephoned Mr

Patrick Ward explained the circumstances and secured his approval as Chairman of

the Board to proceed with the Lease that was already executed (Mr Patrick Wardrsquos

interview statement to Grant Thornton and his letter to me dated October 11 2012

confirm his awareness and approval of the transaction)

Only after receipt of Mr Wardrsquos approval was the request for payment authorized by

me

It should be noted that the AIS Contract was a ldquocost plus expensesrdquo contract NIBrsquos

Management led directly by Raymond Wells not myself had the fiduciary responsibility to

control costs and secondly the legal responsibility to secure housing for the AIS personnel

whom Mr Wells had approved accommodations for at the Hilton Hotel also without my direct

approval Moreover at their request and reportedly for convenience purposes they requested

that they ldquoimmediatelyrdquo be relocated from the Hilton Hotel to apartment style housing Using

6

the authority delegated to him as the Project Manager and Sponsor for the National Prescription

Drug Plan he approved this project cost as a part of his budget that he fully and independently

controlled

Although Grant Thornton has stated in its Forensic Report that they did not find where Raymond

Wells had the authority to control costs for this project the excerpt from the AIS contract below

explains Mr Wellsrsquo Delegated Authority

Section 3

(a) NIB shall provide airfare accommodation and US$7500 PER DIEM for out of

pocket expenses for all of AISrsquos technical personnel during the implementation

phase and thereafter whenever NIB requests such services

The question of authority to enter the contract was based on the full amount paid over the entire

lease period and although this fell into the entire project budget approved by the Board of

Directors and managed by Mr Wells it excludes the fact that his analysis and decision inputs

were based on the monthly cost viz a viz a similar cost in the hotel for all potential occupants

It should be noted that NIBrsquos Accounts Department led by Sonia Gill acted independently in

approving rental payments for this unit and at no time at the execution of the initial payment

approval by myself or directly to me afterwards is there any documented communication from

Mrs Gill to me expressing any concern with regards to this apartment All communication was

directed by her to Mr Raymond Wells the IT Executive who executed the lease and managed

the entire process Additionally Mrs Gill confirmed to Grant Thornton that there was no policy

to govern this transaction and if this is the case it is not clear what policy I or Raymond Wells

violated Grant Thornton appears to be ldquostretchingrdquo to arrive at a conclusion that has been

elucidated by me in my October 9 2012 communication to Mr Gregory Moss

The comparisons with the Delaporte Apartment indicate a 48 differential in cost This is not a

true comparison as it ignores the requirements of NIB in respect of the apartment the advantages

of the Sandyport Apartment and the inputs Ms Gail Carey used in declaring to the Board of

Directors that in her view the Sandyport apartment was superior in many ways to the Delaporte

apartment In reality both were not comparable as the Delaporte apartment consisted of 2

bedrooms and 1 frac12 bathrooms whereas the Sandyport apartment had 3 bedrooms and 3 frac12

bathrooms which would accommodate a mix of male and female occupants more comfortably

and privately Moreover this input by Grant Thornton ignores the fact that neither of the units

appear to have been independently inspected by their firm to confirm that Ms Careyrsquos decision

inputs were valid

The written statements made by realtors Mr Pat Strachan and Mr William Wong are

contradictory (See appendices 144 and 145) however Grant Thornton summarizes in its report

that both realtors arrived at the same conclusion with regards the Sandyport Apartment costs

Specifically Mr Strachan stated the apartment rate was not within industry standards while Mr

Wong contends the cost was a reasonable one In fact Mr Wong stated in his January 21 2013

7

letter that the cost of electricity was a fair amount because the chance that the tenants will

constantly run central air the electricity bill could be much higher It is curious that this

information was misrepresented in the Grant Thornton report

It is disingenuous and misleading for Grant Thornton to not consider and include as

corroborating and validating points the disclosure made in Patrick Wardrsquos Grant Thornton

interview and corroborating letter that he approved the Sandyport lease and the business reasons

he used as inputs in his decision making process

It should have been considered that once Patrick Ward acting as Chairman of the National

Insurance Board approved the lease of the apartment it was his responsibility to advise the

Board of this approval if he considered it was required and not me This is reiterated in

Cadburyrsquos report of best practices in Corporate Governance It is the Chairmanrsquos responsibility

to ensure that all relevant issues are on the agenda

I attest that I approved only the processing of the payment after I had received the approval of

the lease executed by Raymond Wells from Mr Patrick Ward It was inappropriate for Grant

Thornton to state that Patrick Wardrsquos corroborating letter was an ldquoattempt to create a paper trailrdquo

rather than to confirm in writing what he conveyed personally to the firm during his interview ndash

that he as Chairman of the Board of Directors ultimately approved the apartment lease

I approved the processing of the payment after I had made the full disclosure to Mr Ward in the

presence of Mr Wells and did not participate in the decision making process in regards to the

selection of the Sandyport Apartment lease with my brotherrsquos wholly owned company Jes-El-

Car Ltd

Grant Thornton advises at point 1a in its communication to Marco Rolle dated March 22 2013

that I approved the lease of the Sandyport apartment on ldquoFebruary 20 2010rdquo without the Board

of Directors approval Please provide the evidence used to support firstly the date of such

approval and the allegation that I approved the lease I again affirm that the lease was approved

by Raymond Wells and executed by him The payment was approved by me after I secured the

approval of Mr Patrick Ward the Chairman of the Board of Directors in the presence of

Raymond Wells due to the potential conflict

With regards the allegation of non-disclosure in the Related PartyConflict of Interest Disclosure

form of my appointment as a Director and Vice President of Jes-El-Car Ltd at the time the lease

was executed at the time NIB Disclosure Forms were executed and at the time of my interview

with the Board of Directors I was not aware that I had been appointed by my brother Godwin

Cargill as a Director and Officer of his company In fact the legal test of a conflict of interest

and NIBrsquos policy is whether or not I stood to gain any financial benefit as a result of the conflict

and in this instance I did not My brotherrsquos confirmatory sworn affidavit that was prepared by

Davis and Co the registered office for his company attests to this It should be noted that Grant

Thornton excluded from their Forensic Report the fact that Paul Andy Gomez was formally

advised by Davis amp Corsquos Managing Partner Phillip McKenzie on January 24 2013 ie at least

8

three months prior to finalization of the Forensic Report that Godwin Cargill owned 100 of the

shares of Jes-El-Car Ltd The corroborating statement from Davis amp Co that is now attached to

this communication labeled as Exhibit 3 An excerpt from the Corporate file of Jes-El-Car Ltd

maintained by Davis and Co together with the corroborating statement from Phillip McKenzie

confirm that I have never attended any corporate meetings or signed any company documents

and that I do not own any shares in the company and further that I was not present when the

company was incorporated and there is no evidence in their file that I have participated in any

way either directly or indirectly in the affairs of the company (Exhibit 3)

Although Grant Thornton was aware of this exculpatory information and yet excluded it from the

Forensic Report the firm did include in its Forensic Report who the shareholders and beneficial

owners of the company 700 Islands and Kenuthrsquos Electric Company Ltd were thereby

demonstrating their awareness of the importance ownership is in the test of a Conflict of Interest

I feel that as a result of these apparently deliberate actions acted in a prejudicial manner in

arriving at a conclusion of the facts presented with regards this allegation

Grant Thornton has also ignored in its Forensic Report that the conflict of interest with regards to

the Sandyport apartment was disclosed by Gail Carey in her memo to Raymond Wells dated

March 1 2010 This was in accordance with Point 6 ndash Conflicts of Interest policy statement

page 4 This is very concerning

With regards point 1f) and 2d) Grant Thornton should produce the NIB disclosure forms for the

three years referenced December 31 2010 to December 31 2012 Further according to

International Accounting Standards the cost of the rental expense viz a viz the total expenses of

$160 million on average during this period would not be deemed material and therefore not

included in the Financial Statements in any form of disclosure

In fact PricewaterhouseCoopers explained in its Related Party Clarification note to me with

regards the disclosures made by Patrick Ward re the Bahamas First matter- NIBrsquos Property

Insurance Expense of $15 million annually ldquoIt is important to draw distinction between

financial reporting requirements and best practices management information required by those

charged with governance Transactions with entities influenced by key management personnel

including directors is of significance to those charged with governance and a process has been

established to ensure that such information is brought to the attention of those charged with

governance Financial reporting requires disclosure regarding those transactions which would

influence the decision of users of the financial statements and hence as set out in IAS 24

consideration should be given to significance (the transactions referred) and to whether the

transaction significantly impacts the financial performance or position of the Fund whether or

not done at armrsquos length (we observe that there was a tendering process carried out for general

insurance contracts in accordance with NIBrsquos tendering policyrdquo whether or not outside ordinary

course of business (propertycasualty insurance is required given the extent of properties owned

and managed) and reporting lines for approval (significant contracts required Board Approval

9

which was given) None of the aforementioned factors were present and hence do not require

greater disclosure than provided by management in the consolidated statementsrdquo

The materiality of the Sandyport monthly contract is insignificant in respect of NIBrsquos financial

statements as a whole and the corresponding disclosure requirements Had the additional

disclosure been made it was immaterial to the Financial Statements Moreover a disclosure on

my appointment by my brother to his holding (not operating company) could not have been

made as I was not aware of this appointment at the time of the execution of the lease

With regards point 1g) the minutes referenced October 28 2010 re NIB Cases for Prosecution

this was after the apartment had been rented Further Mr Gregory Collie who managed

compliance on behalf of the Board will confirm that his account was entirely in good standing at

the time of the rental in 2010 and 2011 and the inclusion in the Prosecution Report was an error

by NIB Moreover it was not my responsibility to check or confirm that National Insurance

arrears do not exist and in this case this requirement should have been met by Gail Carey andor

Raymond Wells

In summary this forensic report does not support the serious allegations made in Gregory Mossrsquo

November 8 letter specifically dereliction of duty gross misconduct insubordination gross

negligence and conflict of interest There are absolutely no facts to support any of these

allegations and leads to the conclusion that this allegation has no basis and is not supported with

the facts discovered throughout the forensic investigation conducted

Enclosures 1 - 8

1 Davis amp Co Letter to Paul Andy Gomez Managing Partner Grant Thornton dated

January 24 2013

2 Davis amp Co supplemental letter to Sears and Co dated May 10 2013 and corroborating

Affidavit of Godwin Cargill

3 Declarations of Beneficial Interest in Jes El Car Ltd by Tootsie V Hunter and Debbie

Michelle Gilbert

4 Resolution of the First Meeting of Jes-El-Car Ltd dated June 7 2000 ndash noting that

Algernon Cargill was not present All subsequent resolutions confirm that Algernon

Cargill was not present at any of these meetings

5 Resolutions of Borrowing Authority by Jes-El-Car Ltd ndash Algernon Cargill was not named

in any of these nor was he present at the time these resolutions were executed

6 Related Party Explanation by Gowon Bowe Partner PricewaterhouseCoopers

7 Letter of October 9 2012 by me to Mr Gregory Moss on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

8 Letter of October 11 2012 by Patrick Ward to me on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

10

Allegation 2 ndash The Bahamas First Insurance Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings do not relate to my actions and my Affidavit filed in the Supreme

Court actually has very serious allegations on the conduct of Gregory Moss with regards this

matter

11

Allegation 3 ndash The Kenuthrsquos Electric Issue

Gregory Moss reported and Grant Thornton substantiated that the records of NIB confirm that

the sum of $209361982 was paid directly to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work performed on NIB

properties during the period 9th

December 2008 to 29th

August 2012 According to my

preliminary analysis this amount was $1062360 and according to the Grant Thornton Forensic

Report the Financial Controller also advised on page 80 at point 32 (b) that the amount of

$209361982 does not agree with NIBrsquos records Further Grant Thornton should deduct the

approved payments to Mr Knowles that NIB made on behalf of General Contractors that were

approved by the Project consultants and contractors and recorded as a project disbursement and

the amounts for direct NIB contracts andor the Ministry of Tourism project thereafter the

analysis would then confirm that the amount paid to Mr Knowles for the period 2008-2012

would be in the range of $500000 Moreover I am advised that the rates charged by this

company are within market rates and secondly are less than the rates that NIB is currently being

billed for electrical and air-conditioning services Current invoices reflect a fixed rate of $125

per hour and according to Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report Kenuthrsquos Electric rates were

$3303 to $10505 per hour Moreover further analysis by Grant Thornton would have

confirmed that these rates were not per employee as is the current case at NIB but were for a

minimum of 2 employees dispatched to NIB by the company

With regard to item 32(d) finding that the completion of the installation of parking lot lights at

the Poinciana Hill Building is the only contract found where Kenuthrsquos Electric was engaged by

NIB is inaccurate This work was approved by the Ministry of Health through a tender process

and Purchase Orders (a contract) were issued to Mr Knowles for several other works at NIB that

were recommended by NIB personnel other than me For example the IT Cabling to replace

the wireless financial network was approved by the IT Department the Electrical Upgrade to

NIBrsquos Head Office to facilitate the renovations to the property were approved by the Buildings

Division and any interview of these Department heads would confirm this Notwithstanding it

should be noted that the quantum of work at NIB Head Quarters would appear significant as the

premises were upgraded department by department over the past four (4) years to avoid any

interruption to key services and secondly the IT infrastructure had to be replaced as transactions

in the wireless environment were dropping and financial records were being compromised In

summary Grant Thornton who should be aware that a Purchase Order is a binding agreement

had sight of the Purchase Orders for the IT Networking the installation of the NIB HQ

Lightening Arrestor the details of the direct disbursements made to Kenuthrsquos Electric on behalf

of contractors and the details of all project works including the Ministry of Tourism project and

chose to not include these important facts in its Forensic Report analysis of payments made to

Kenuthrsquos Electric With regards to Grant Thorntonrsquos Findings on page 81 at point 33 and the

misrepresentations by Gregory Moss in his November 8 letter to Shane Gibson the following

clarifying points that Grant Thornton had reviewed and again chose to not clarify in its Forensic

12

Report should be noted

a $22225 - The 50 payment is due in part to the approved purchase order

POPON2M0900080 for the installation of Network cabling for the IT Department

which is supported by an in house requisition form In other words a binding contract

was evident

b $500676 - The purported finding that the new lightening protection system as installed

was completed without the involvement of a Consulting Engineer is inaccurate Kenuthrsquos

Electric would have been required to consult a Certified UL Consultant and or vendor in

order to provide the required lightening protection equipment (grounding copper cables

only from the pole to designated areas) Please also note that to date there are no local

person and or vendor that meets this criteria and the company consulted their USA

supplier for guidance and technical advice and guidance

c $1030534 - The variation in labor rates is a direct result to the level of

Technicianskilled company representative that completed the work Industry standard

rates are normally between $30 - $125 depending upon the level of the vendor

representative completing the tasks on behalf of the engaged company Further NIB is

currently paying rates of $125 per hour for electrical and air-condition works and is

shockingly now using the same electrical contractors the same air-condition contractors

and the same engineers for works on NIBrsquos properties and in most cases without any

tender documents at the time the work is awarded

d This finding is incorrect misleading and appears deliberately false as Grant Thornton

had unrestricted access to all of NIBrsquos records The cost of $880000 was related to the

installation of the lightning arrestor pole at the Head Quarters Building which included

the use of crane services to install the 45ft tapered pole that was designed by a USA

Vendor at the same standard of the Lightening Arrestor at the Miami International

Airport

e The reported finding that $1495875 was expended for specialty crane services is false

The amount of $1495875 was the balance payment due to Kenuthrsquos Electric for the

procurement and installation of the lightening arrestor rod This project was awarded to

Kenuthrsquos Electric following the submission of bids from at least three (3) vendors

including Kenuthrsquos Electric

f Again the statement the amount totaling $1111934 was the culmination of ONLY three

(3) invoices is false and inaccurate The payment of $1111934 included payments of six

(6) invoices to complete networking infrastructure in various buildings and departments

With regard to labour rates please refer to explanation in item (d)

g The hours worked noted was for the disconnection of data lines whips and feeders from

the existing cubicles and to relocate and reconnect the same in newly installed pre-

owned cubicle sections not having the service connections (data and power) properly

13

connected to the units but rather in boxes located in the shipping trailer Kenuthrsquos Electric

was then required to retrieve these items and accurately match the same to the cubicle

sections that were installed by another vendor Additionally in some cases new

additional power and or data lines were required to be installed within the office areas to

accommodate the cubicle sections The work was completed in the Central Benefits

Department and Inspectorate Department and Kenuthrsquos Electric was authorized to

proceed by the IT and Buildings department Again all works are related to the

installation of networking cabling infrastructure

With regards the findings that start of page 84 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report the

following should be noted

33 (b) (i) The labor rates within the invoices are consistent with industry standard labor

rates depending upon the level of the technicianworkman completing the relevant task

As noted above NIB is now paying without question labour rates of $125 for electrical

and air-conditioning work and in most cases these works are not being tendered at the

time of their award

For point 33 (b) (ii) It is highly unlikely that the Accounting Department of NIB would

honor payment for services without the submission of an invoice from a vendor This

statement is misleading and not consistent with the Accounting practices of NIB and

reflects on yet another attempt by Grant Thornton to suggest wrongdoing on the part of

NIB More due diligence is required by Grant Thornton and the statement is an attempt

to cast further aspersions on my character and reputation particularly as Grant Thornton

is fully or should be fully aware of the independent process employed by the Accounting

Department in approving any invoice for payment

For point 33(b) (iii) The statement that Graphite Engineering did not validate the

corrective works at the Ministry of Tourism project is wholly inaccurate and borders on

being reckless and again appears to be deliberately misleading In fact Grant Thornton

and Shane Gibson were purposely advised by NIBrsquos Buildings Department of the process

followed with regards the Ministry of Tourism corrective works performed by another

electrical contractor Kenuthrsquos Electric was required to remediate this work that was

previously approved and certified for payment by the Ministry of Works during the

original construction of the complex in 2005-2007

NIB contracted Graphite Engineering Ltd principal Sonia Brown to identify the

remedial work required in order that the final electrical inspection could be provided by

the Ministry of Works This is very similar to the current situation wherein NIB has

contracted Henry Storr Electric on the same contractual basis that Kenuthrsquos Electric was

contracted Graphite Engineering is a very reputable MEP Engineering firm and is

currently completing additional Engineering Services for two of NIBrsquos major projects

the mini hospitals in Abaco and Exuma Graphite Engineeringrsquos reports are available in

14

NIBrsquos file and will confirm their analysis of the remedial work required and certification

of all works completed according to the Bahamas Electrical Code prior to advancing to

NIB for payment

In addition to Graphite Engineeringrsquos certification NIB contracted Construction Cost

Engineering Services Ltd to certify the cost of every payment for work completed after

Graphite Engineering had confirmed that the work had been completed to their

specifications and satisfaction All invoices were certified by Quantity Surveyors

Construction Cost Engineering prior to any recommendation for payment by NIBrsquos

building department not by me

Grant Thornton had sight of this information all certifications by Graphite and

Construction Cost and elected to not include it in its summary report This is very

curious and shocking

Further under Graphitersquo supervision and direction the estimation of 3 ndash 4 weeks to

complete the remedial works was consistent with their initial scope as noted within their

report which also indicated that their recommendations were solely based upon what

should have been seen and not any defects that were hidden Moreover The Bahamas

Building Code requires that all exit points be adequately designated by illuminated exit

signs in corridors of commercial buildings At the time while Kenuthrsquos Electric was

completing the electrical remedial works it was advised to them by the consultants that

there were no exit signs installed and this is a key requirement for the final inspection

certificate from the Ministry of Works Additionally the cost of electric illuminated exit

signs ranges from $2500 - $3500 per sign excluding installation Further the ldquofindingsrdquo

by Grant Thornton that the Kenuthrsquos Electric billed $30000 for the supply or emergency

lights ballasts exit lights signs and bulbs shows a lack of thoroughness and

completeness in the firmrsquos analysis

For point 33(b)(iv) It is also shocking that Grant Thornton has reported that NO

contracts regarding the SRC Project were available for their review and if this is indeed

the case how could the firm provide any findings of fact with regards the erroneous and

misleading findings in this regard For this reason any statement or finding provided

regarding this project within their report is considered highly speculative and should be

excluded until the firm has reviewed the contracts that are still resident within NIB

Likewise the statement that there was no practical explanation of how CTrsquos on a large

electrical system upgrade could have been overlooked is a good question and should have

been answered readily by Grant Thorntonrsquos own Consultant Applied Consultants amp

Engineers (Dennis Nairn of ACE) This company ACE Dennis Nairn whom Grant

Thornton has reportedly contracted as an ldquoexpertrdquo in the field of electrical works was the

supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for the ldquolarge electrical systemrdquo at the Sandilands project

and it was this company not Kenuthrsquos Electric who despite being paid in full by

Kenuthrsquos Electric for the supply of the Square D system including CTs had shockingly

15

not included it in its order and supply and subsequently delayed the project by several

weeks Dennis Nairn of ACE was required to provide the required CTrsquos for this project

and instead only provided the CT Cabinet although the CTrsquos were in fact noted on the

design documents It baffles the mind that ACE is now acting as an agent of Grant

Thornton when they were the main supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for this project and

didnrsquot perform then Unbelievable

Findings at point 35

1 The direct payment to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work completed on the SRC Project was

authorized by the Contractor and Consultants attached to the formal payment request

The subsequent allegations being made by Shane Gibson in the media with regards the

Exuma Project are deliberately false and reckless There is absolutely no evidence to

confirm his allegations that I telephoned the contractor for the Exuma Mini Hospital and

demanded that he award the contract to Kenuthrsquos Electric Mr Gibson should review the

information in NIBrsquos files including the Board of Directors minutes and the

memorandums of the Director to determine the determination of the Board of Directors

and not assert opinions that can be easily verified to be inaccurate and baseless The facts

are

a NIB Board of Directors agreed to standardize all sub-contractors for the

Abaco and Exuma Hospital ie Electrical Plumbing and Air-condition

b The Architect MEP Engineers and Civil and Structural Engineers were also

standardized as the projects were a duplicate of each other and the Board

considered that for greater efficiency and because of ongoing experiences

with the Sandilands and Ministry of Tourism projects that they wanted a

problem free job and decided to standardize the entire team with the exception

of the General Contractor

c The electrical contractor nominated by the contractor did not have any

experience with any medical facilities or similar facilities did not have an

independent operationbusiness and based on Osbourne Moxeyrsquos analysis did

not appear to have the experience to complete this job ndash please also note NIB

ongoing experience with the Ministry of Tourism building that has had

several electrical fires and this slipshod electrical work was top of mind by

NIBrsquos Project Manager when he and the project consultants recommended

that we standardize all sub-contractors

d Osbourne Moxey and I together spoke with the General Contractor and

outlined the Boardrsquos requirements and advised the contractor that our job was

to advise what the Board had recommended and at the end of the day he was

free to make any decision that he wanted An interview with the General

Contractor could only confirm this statement and nothing else At this point I

16

will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media

by Minister Gibson particularly as these have not been included in the Grant

Thornton report notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have

It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntonrsquos several interviews with NIBrsquos Project Manager

and NIBrsquos Property Managers there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way

that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuthrsquos Electric exclusively In fact it is Osbourne

Moxeyrsquos professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several

occasions to NIBrsquos Board of Directors Minister Gibson and other NIB employees that it was

preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board

complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems but compromising of

our already delicate electrical infrastructure I am therefore confused that the works performed

by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my

behalf particularly I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or

mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

4

Allegation 1 ndash The Sandyport Contract

My letter to Gregory Moss dated October 9 2012 (copy attached and numbered Exhibit 1) and

corroborating confirmation from Patrick Ward (copy attached and numbered Exhibit 2)

confirm the actual events that transpired I am not in a position to respond to any of the

conjecture andor assumptions made by Grant Thornton in the report as I only became aware of

the lease and rental of the apartment on February 26 2010 when the matter was referred to me

by Raymond Wells Until this time the entire process was managed by the Information

Technology Department (IT) under Mr Wellsrsquo leadership and I have already confirmed and

corroborated that he executed the lease he approved the apartment rental and he was present

when I telephoned Patrick Ward and received the approval after full disclosure was made to

Patrick Ward Full disclosure entailed information that the company that executed the lease Jes-

El-Car Ltd was beneficially owned by my brother Godwin Cargill and the due diligence

reported to me by Mr Wells that his employee Gail Carey utilized in recommending this unit

over the other units inspected Further based on the information provided in the Grant Thornton

NIB Forensic Report it is apparent that a transparent process occurred and a competitive pricing

analysis was undertaken by the IT Department led by Raymond Wells in the search and

selection of the apartment and execution of the lease document

I also confirmed that during a subsequent meeting that Patrick Ward and I had with former Prime

Minister Hubert Ingraham that the rental of the apartment was again fully disclosed

Gail Carey the IT Department employee that managed the securing of permanent residence for

the AIS team has also confirmed in writing and during her interview that prior to the rental of

the apartment and payment to the lessor Jes-El-Car Ltd that she has had no direct or indirect

communication with me about the apartment nor did she express any concern to me Her

communications were with her supervisor Raymond Wells and armed with this information

together with the transparent process followed by Ms Carey as well as the pricing and unit

comparisons together with the reported increased safety element of Sandyport viz a viz

Delaporte Point he approved the rental under the delegated authority he had for managing the

project costs which is the exact authority he had to approve the hotel rental costs for AIS during

their stay in temporary housing

Gregory Mossrsquo allegations that Ms Velma Thompson (a cousin of mine and an employee of

NIB) coincidentally received a telephone call from her sister Maggie etc is without merit

particularly as neither he nor the Grant Thornton team interviewed Ms Thompson Had they

interviewed her she could have confirmed that she is a distant cousin of mine and at no time

prior to the apartment rental and even to this day has she had any discussion with me about the

rental of the Sandyport Apartment

The following bullet points summarize the comments noted immediately above by me

5

The Information Technology (IT) department had full responsibility for the

management of the AIS Contract and this contract included a provision for NIB to

pay for housing costs It is a standard practice for departments and their heads to be

responsible for all cost activities related to their departments

That Mr Raymond Wells Deputy Director IT had the full responsibility for this

contract and his project budget that was approved by the Board of Directors included

housing costs for the AIS Team

That Mr Wells initially approved hotel accommodations for the team and later at

AISrsquo request requested his assistant to secure permanent housing

That the recommendations for hotel and permanent housing were managed

exclusively by Mr Raymond Wells and his team and during this process until the

request for payment was referred to me I had neither involvement nor knowledge of

the process - Mr Wellsrsquo statement and that of his assistant Gail Carey verify this

statement

That I have had no communication with Ms Gail Carey about the rental of the

apartment or with Velma Thompson

That at the time Mr Raymond Wells referred the Payment Request to me on February

26th

which was dated February 25th

I recognized that the name of the company that

the apartment was leased from was that of my brotherrsquos company Jes-El-Car Ltd I

recognized the name as the name is that of my brotherrsquos 3 children ndash Jessica Elliott

and Carla Cargill

I disclosed this to Mr Wells and together on February 26 2012 we telephoned Mr

Patrick Ward explained the circumstances and secured his approval as Chairman of

the Board to proceed with the Lease that was already executed (Mr Patrick Wardrsquos

interview statement to Grant Thornton and his letter to me dated October 11 2012

confirm his awareness and approval of the transaction)

Only after receipt of Mr Wardrsquos approval was the request for payment authorized by

me

It should be noted that the AIS Contract was a ldquocost plus expensesrdquo contract NIBrsquos

Management led directly by Raymond Wells not myself had the fiduciary responsibility to

control costs and secondly the legal responsibility to secure housing for the AIS personnel

whom Mr Wells had approved accommodations for at the Hilton Hotel also without my direct

approval Moreover at their request and reportedly for convenience purposes they requested

that they ldquoimmediatelyrdquo be relocated from the Hilton Hotel to apartment style housing Using

6

the authority delegated to him as the Project Manager and Sponsor for the National Prescription

Drug Plan he approved this project cost as a part of his budget that he fully and independently

controlled

Although Grant Thornton has stated in its Forensic Report that they did not find where Raymond

Wells had the authority to control costs for this project the excerpt from the AIS contract below

explains Mr Wellsrsquo Delegated Authority

Section 3

(a) NIB shall provide airfare accommodation and US$7500 PER DIEM for out of

pocket expenses for all of AISrsquos technical personnel during the implementation

phase and thereafter whenever NIB requests such services

The question of authority to enter the contract was based on the full amount paid over the entire

lease period and although this fell into the entire project budget approved by the Board of

Directors and managed by Mr Wells it excludes the fact that his analysis and decision inputs

were based on the monthly cost viz a viz a similar cost in the hotel for all potential occupants

It should be noted that NIBrsquos Accounts Department led by Sonia Gill acted independently in

approving rental payments for this unit and at no time at the execution of the initial payment

approval by myself or directly to me afterwards is there any documented communication from

Mrs Gill to me expressing any concern with regards to this apartment All communication was

directed by her to Mr Raymond Wells the IT Executive who executed the lease and managed

the entire process Additionally Mrs Gill confirmed to Grant Thornton that there was no policy

to govern this transaction and if this is the case it is not clear what policy I or Raymond Wells

violated Grant Thornton appears to be ldquostretchingrdquo to arrive at a conclusion that has been

elucidated by me in my October 9 2012 communication to Mr Gregory Moss

The comparisons with the Delaporte Apartment indicate a 48 differential in cost This is not a

true comparison as it ignores the requirements of NIB in respect of the apartment the advantages

of the Sandyport Apartment and the inputs Ms Gail Carey used in declaring to the Board of

Directors that in her view the Sandyport apartment was superior in many ways to the Delaporte

apartment In reality both were not comparable as the Delaporte apartment consisted of 2

bedrooms and 1 frac12 bathrooms whereas the Sandyport apartment had 3 bedrooms and 3 frac12

bathrooms which would accommodate a mix of male and female occupants more comfortably

and privately Moreover this input by Grant Thornton ignores the fact that neither of the units

appear to have been independently inspected by their firm to confirm that Ms Careyrsquos decision

inputs were valid

The written statements made by realtors Mr Pat Strachan and Mr William Wong are

contradictory (See appendices 144 and 145) however Grant Thornton summarizes in its report

that both realtors arrived at the same conclusion with regards the Sandyport Apartment costs

Specifically Mr Strachan stated the apartment rate was not within industry standards while Mr

Wong contends the cost was a reasonable one In fact Mr Wong stated in his January 21 2013

7

letter that the cost of electricity was a fair amount because the chance that the tenants will

constantly run central air the electricity bill could be much higher It is curious that this

information was misrepresented in the Grant Thornton report

It is disingenuous and misleading for Grant Thornton to not consider and include as

corroborating and validating points the disclosure made in Patrick Wardrsquos Grant Thornton

interview and corroborating letter that he approved the Sandyport lease and the business reasons

he used as inputs in his decision making process

It should have been considered that once Patrick Ward acting as Chairman of the National

Insurance Board approved the lease of the apartment it was his responsibility to advise the

Board of this approval if he considered it was required and not me This is reiterated in

Cadburyrsquos report of best practices in Corporate Governance It is the Chairmanrsquos responsibility

to ensure that all relevant issues are on the agenda

I attest that I approved only the processing of the payment after I had received the approval of

the lease executed by Raymond Wells from Mr Patrick Ward It was inappropriate for Grant

Thornton to state that Patrick Wardrsquos corroborating letter was an ldquoattempt to create a paper trailrdquo

rather than to confirm in writing what he conveyed personally to the firm during his interview ndash

that he as Chairman of the Board of Directors ultimately approved the apartment lease

I approved the processing of the payment after I had made the full disclosure to Mr Ward in the

presence of Mr Wells and did not participate in the decision making process in regards to the

selection of the Sandyport Apartment lease with my brotherrsquos wholly owned company Jes-El-

Car Ltd

Grant Thornton advises at point 1a in its communication to Marco Rolle dated March 22 2013

that I approved the lease of the Sandyport apartment on ldquoFebruary 20 2010rdquo without the Board

of Directors approval Please provide the evidence used to support firstly the date of such

approval and the allegation that I approved the lease I again affirm that the lease was approved

by Raymond Wells and executed by him The payment was approved by me after I secured the

approval of Mr Patrick Ward the Chairman of the Board of Directors in the presence of

Raymond Wells due to the potential conflict

With regards the allegation of non-disclosure in the Related PartyConflict of Interest Disclosure

form of my appointment as a Director and Vice President of Jes-El-Car Ltd at the time the lease

was executed at the time NIB Disclosure Forms were executed and at the time of my interview

with the Board of Directors I was not aware that I had been appointed by my brother Godwin

Cargill as a Director and Officer of his company In fact the legal test of a conflict of interest

and NIBrsquos policy is whether or not I stood to gain any financial benefit as a result of the conflict

and in this instance I did not My brotherrsquos confirmatory sworn affidavit that was prepared by

Davis and Co the registered office for his company attests to this It should be noted that Grant

Thornton excluded from their Forensic Report the fact that Paul Andy Gomez was formally

advised by Davis amp Corsquos Managing Partner Phillip McKenzie on January 24 2013 ie at least

8

three months prior to finalization of the Forensic Report that Godwin Cargill owned 100 of the

shares of Jes-El-Car Ltd The corroborating statement from Davis amp Co that is now attached to

this communication labeled as Exhibit 3 An excerpt from the Corporate file of Jes-El-Car Ltd

maintained by Davis and Co together with the corroborating statement from Phillip McKenzie

confirm that I have never attended any corporate meetings or signed any company documents

and that I do not own any shares in the company and further that I was not present when the

company was incorporated and there is no evidence in their file that I have participated in any

way either directly or indirectly in the affairs of the company (Exhibit 3)

Although Grant Thornton was aware of this exculpatory information and yet excluded it from the

Forensic Report the firm did include in its Forensic Report who the shareholders and beneficial

owners of the company 700 Islands and Kenuthrsquos Electric Company Ltd were thereby

demonstrating their awareness of the importance ownership is in the test of a Conflict of Interest

I feel that as a result of these apparently deliberate actions acted in a prejudicial manner in

arriving at a conclusion of the facts presented with regards this allegation

Grant Thornton has also ignored in its Forensic Report that the conflict of interest with regards to

the Sandyport apartment was disclosed by Gail Carey in her memo to Raymond Wells dated

March 1 2010 This was in accordance with Point 6 ndash Conflicts of Interest policy statement

page 4 This is very concerning

With regards point 1f) and 2d) Grant Thornton should produce the NIB disclosure forms for the

three years referenced December 31 2010 to December 31 2012 Further according to

International Accounting Standards the cost of the rental expense viz a viz the total expenses of

$160 million on average during this period would not be deemed material and therefore not

included in the Financial Statements in any form of disclosure

In fact PricewaterhouseCoopers explained in its Related Party Clarification note to me with

regards the disclosures made by Patrick Ward re the Bahamas First matter- NIBrsquos Property

Insurance Expense of $15 million annually ldquoIt is important to draw distinction between

financial reporting requirements and best practices management information required by those

charged with governance Transactions with entities influenced by key management personnel

including directors is of significance to those charged with governance and a process has been

established to ensure that such information is brought to the attention of those charged with

governance Financial reporting requires disclosure regarding those transactions which would

influence the decision of users of the financial statements and hence as set out in IAS 24

consideration should be given to significance (the transactions referred) and to whether the

transaction significantly impacts the financial performance or position of the Fund whether or

not done at armrsquos length (we observe that there was a tendering process carried out for general

insurance contracts in accordance with NIBrsquos tendering policyrdquo whether or not outside ordinary

course of business (propertycasualty insurance is required given the extent of properties owned

and managed) and reporting lines for approval (significant contracts required Board Approval

9

which was given) None of the aforementioned factors were present and hence do not require

greater disclosure than provided by management in the consolidated statementsrdquo

The materiality of the Sandyport monthly contract is insignificant in respect of NIBrsquos financial

statements as a whole and the corresponding disclosure requirements Had the additional

disclosure been made it was immaterial to the Financial Statements Moreover a disclosure on

my appointment by my brother to his holding (not operating company) could not have been

made as I was not aware of this appointment at the time of the execution of the lease

With regards point 1g) the minutes referenced October 28 2010 re NIB Cases for Prosecution

this was after the apartment had been rented Further Mr Gregory Collie who managed

compliance on behalf of the Board will confirm that his account was entirely in good standing at

the time of the rental in 2010 and 2011 and the inclusion in the Prosecution Report was an error

by NIB Moreover it was not my responsibility to check or confirm that National Insurance

arrears do not exist and in this case this requirement should have been met by Gail Carey andor

Raymond Wells

In summary this forensic report does not support the serious allegations made in Gregory Mossrsquo

November 8 letter specifically dereliction of duty gross misconduct insubordination gross

negligence and conflict of interest There are absolutely no facts to support any of these

allegations and leads to the conclusion that this allegation has no basis and is not supported with

the facts discovered throughout the forensic investigation conducted

Enclosures 1 - 8

1 Davis amp Co Letter to Paul Andy Gomez Managing Partner Grant Thornton dated

January 24 2013

2 Davis amp Co supplemental letter to Sears and Co dated May 10 2013 and corroborating

Affidavit of Godwin Cargill

3 Declarations of Beneficial Interest in Jes El Car Ltd by Tootsie V Hunter and Debbie

Michelle Gilbert

4 Resolution of the First Meeting of Jes-El-Car Ltd dated June 7 2000 ndash noting that

Algernon Cargill was not present All subsequent resolutions confirm that Algernon

Cargill was not present at any of these meetings

5 Resolutions of Borrowing Authority by Jes-El-Car Ltd ndash Algernon Cargill was not named

in any of these nor was he present at the time these resolutions were executed

6 Related Party Explanation by Gowon Bowe Partner PricewaterhouseCoopers

7 Letter of October 9 2012 by me to Mr Gregory Moss on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

8 Letter of October 11 2012 by Patrick Ward to me on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

10

Allegation 2 ndash The Bahamas First Insurance Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings do not relate to my actions and my Affidavit filed in the Supreme

Court actually has very serious allegations on the conduct of Gregory Moss with regards this

matter

11

Allegation 3 ndash The Kenuthrsquos Electric Issue

Gregory Moss reported and Grant Thornton substantiated that the records of NIB confirm that

the sum of $209361982 was paid directly to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work performed on NIB

properties during the period 9th

December 2008 to 29th

August 2012 According to my

preliminary analysis this amount was $1062360 and according to the Grant Thornton Forensic

Report the Financial Controller also advised on page 80 at point 32 (b) that the amount of

$209361982 does not agree with NIBrsquos records Further Grant Thornton should deduct the

approved payments to Mr Knowles that NIB made on behalf of General Contractors that were

approved by the Project consultants and contractors and recorded as a project disbursement and

the amounts for direct NIB contracts andor the Ministry of Tourism project thereafter the

analysis would then confirm that the amount paid to Mr Knowles for the period 2008-2012

would be in the range of $500000 Moreover I am advised that the rates charged by this

company are within market rates and secondly are less than the rates that NIB is currently being

billed for electrical and air-conditioning services Current invoices reflect a fixed rate of $125

per hour and according to Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report Kenuthrsquos Electric rates were

$3303 to $10505 per hour Moreover further analysis by Grant Thornton would have

confirmed that these rates were not per employee as is the current case at NIB but were for a

minimum of 2 employees dispatched to NIB by the company

With regard to item 32(d) finding that the completion of the installation of parking lot lights at

the Poinciana Hill Building is the only contract found where Kenuthrsquos Electric was engaged by

NIB is inaccurate This work was approved by the Ministry of Health through a tender process

and Purchase Orders (a contract) were issued to Mr Knowles for several other works at NIB that

were recommended by NIB personnel other than me For example the IT Cabling to replace

the wireless financial network was approved by the IT Department the Electrical Upgrade to

NIBrsquos Head Office to facilitate the renovations to the property were approved by the Buildings

Division and any interview of these Department heads would confirm this Notwithstanding it

should be noted that the quantum of work at NIB Head Quarters would appear significant as the

premises were upgraded department by department over the past four (4) years to avoid any

interruption to key services and secondly the IT infrastructure had to be replaced as transactions

in the wireless environment were dropping and financial records were being compromised In

summary Grant Thornton who should be aware that a Purchase Order is a binding agreement

had sight of the Purchase Orders for the IT Networking the installation of the NIB HQ

Lightening Arrestor the details of the direct disbursements made to Kenuthrsquos Electric on behalf

of contractors and the details of all project works including the Ministry of Tourism project and

chose to not include these important facts in its Forensic Report analysis of payments made to

Kenuthrsquos Electric With regards to Grant Thorntonrsquos Findings on page 81 at point 33 and the

misrepresentations by Gregory Moss in his November 8 letter to Shane Gibson the following

clarifying points that Grant Thornton had reviewed and again chose to not clarify in its Forensic

12

Report should be noted

a $22225 - The 50 payment is due in part to the approved purchase order

POPON2M0900080 for the installation of Network cabling for the IT Department

which is supported by an in house requisition form In other words a binding contract

was evident

b $500676 - The purported finding that the new lightening protection system as installed

was completed without the involvement of a Consulting Engineer is inaccurate Kenuthrsquos

Electric would have been required to consult a Certified UL Consultant and or vendor in

order to provide the required lightening protection equipment (grounding copper cables

only from the pole to designated areas) Please also note that to date there are no local

person and or vendor that meets this criteria and the company consulted their USA

supplier for guidance and technical advice and guidance

c $1030534 - The variation in labor rates is a direct result to the level of

Technicianskilled company representative that completed the work Industry standard

rates are normally between $30 - $125 depending upon the level of the vendor

representative completing the tasks on behalf of the engaged company Further NIB is

currently paying rates of $125 per hour for electrical and air-condition works and is

shockingly now using the same electrical contractors the same air-condition contractors

and the same engineers for works on NIBrsquos properties and in most cases without any

tender documents at the time the work is awarded

d This finding is incorrect misleading and appears deliberately false as Grant Thornton

had unrestricted access to all of NIBrsquos records The cost of $880000 was related to the

installation of the lightning arrestor pole at the Head Quarters Building which included

the use of crane services to install the 45ft tapered pole that was designed by a USA

Vendor at the same standard of the Lightening Arrestor at the Miami International

Airport

e The reported finding that $1495875 was expended for specialty crane services is false

The amount of $1495875 was the balance payment due to Kenuthrsquos Electric for the

procurement and installation of the lightening arrestor rod This project was awarded to

Kenuthrsquos Electric following the submission of bids from at least three (3) vendors

including Kenuthrsquos Electric

f Again the statement the amount totaling $1111934 was the culmination of ONLY three

(3) invoices is false and inaccurate The payment of $1111934 included payments of six

(6) invoices to complete networking infrastructure in various buildings and departments

With regard to labour rates please refer to explanation in item (d)

g The hours worked noted was for the disconnection of data lines whips and feeders from

the existing cubicles and to relocate and reconnect the same in newly installed pre-

owned cubicle sections not having the service connections (data and power) properly

13

connected to the units but rather in boxes located in the shipping trailer Kenuthrsquos Electric

was then required to retrieve these items and accurately match the same to the cubicle

sections that were installed by another vendor Additionally in some cases new

additional power and or data lines were required to be installed within the office areas to

accommodate the cubicle sections The work was completed in the Central Benefits

Department and Inspectorate Department and Kenuthrsquos Electric was authorized to

proceed by the IT and Buildings department Again all works are related to the

installation of networking cabling infrastructure

With regards the findings that start of page 84 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report the

following should be noted

33 (b) (i) The labor rates within the invoices are consistent with industry standard labor

rates depending upon the level of the technicianworkman completing the relevant task

As noted above NIB is now paying without question labour rates of $125 for electrical

and air-conditioning work and in most cases these works are not being tendered at the

time of their award

For point 33 (b) (ii) It is highly unlikely that the Accounting Department of NIB would

honor payment for services without the submission of an invoice from a vendor This

statement is misleading and not consistent with the Accounting practices of NIB and

reflects on yet another attempt by Grant Thornton to suggest wrongdoing on the part of

NIB More due diligence is required by Grant Thornton and the statement is an attempt

to cast further aspersions on my character and reputation particularly as Grant Thornton

is fully or should be fully aware of the independent process employed by the Accounting

Department in approving any invoice for payment

For point 33(b) (iii) The statement that Graphite Engineering did not validate the

corrective works at the Ministry of Tourism project is wholly inaccurate and borders on

being reckless and again appears to be deliberately misleading In fact Grant Thornton

and Shane Gibson were purposely advised by NIBrsquos Buildings Department of the process

followed with regards the Ministry of Tourism corrective works performed by another

electrical contractor Kenuthrsquos Electric was required to remediate this work that was

previously approved and certified for payment by the Ministry of Works during the

original construction of the complex in 2005-2007

NIB contracted Graphite Engineering Ltd principal Sonia Brown to identify the

remedial work required in order that the final electrical inspection could be provided by

the Ministry of Works This is very similar to the current situation wherein NIB has

contracted Henry Storr Electric on the same contractual basis that Kenuthrsquos Electric was

contracted Graphite Engineering is a very reputable MEP Engineering firm and is

currently completing additional Engineering Services for two of NIBrsquos major projects

the mini hospitals in Abaco and Exuma Graphite Engineeringrsquos reports are available in

14

NIBrsquos file and will confirm their analysis of the remedial work required and certification

of all works completed according to the Bahamas Electrical Code prior to advancing to

NIB for payment

In addition to Graphite Engineeringrsquos certification NIB contracted Construction Cost

Engineering Services Ltd to certify the cost of every payment for work completed after

Graphite Engineering had confirmed that the work had been completed to their

specifications and satisfaction All invoices were certified by Quantity Surveyors

Construction Cost Engineering prior to any recommendation for payment by NIBrsquos

building department not by me

Grant Thornton had sight of this information all certifications by Graphite and

Construction Cost and elected to not include it in its summary report This is very

curious and shocking

Further under Graphitersquo supervision and direction the estimation of 3 ndash 4 weeks to

complete the remedial works was consistent with their initial scope as noted within their

report which also indicated that their recommendations were solely based upon what

should have been seen and not any defects that were hidden Moreover The Bahamas

Building Code requires that all exit points be adequately designated by illuminated exit

signs in corridors of commercial buildings At the time while Kenuthrsquos Electric was

completing the electrical remedial works it was advised to them by the consultants that

there were no exit signs installed and this is a key requirement for the final inspection

certificate from the Ministry of Works Additionally the cost of electric illuminated exit

signs ranges from $2500 - $3500 per sign excluding installation Further the ldquofindingsrdquo

by Grant Thornton that the Kenuthrsquos Electric billed $30000 for the supply or emergency

lights ballasts exit lights signs and bulbs shows a lack of thoroughness and

completeness in the firmrsquos analysis

For point 33(b)(iv) It is also shocking that Grant Thornton has reported that NO

contracts regarding the SRC Project were available for their review and if this is indeed

the case how could the firm provide any findings of fact with regards the erroneous and

misleading findings in this regard For this reason any statement or finding provided

regarding this project within their report is considered highly speculative and should be

excluded until the firm has reviewed the contracts that are still resident within NIB

Likewise the statement that there was no practical explanation of how CTrsquos on a large

electrical system upgrade could have been overlooked is a good question and should have

been answered readily by Grant Thorntonrsquos own Consultant Applied Consultants amp

Engineers (Dennis Nairn of ACE) This company ACE Dennis Nairn whom Grant

Thornton has reportedly contracted as an ldquoexpertrdquo in the field of electrical works was the

supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for the ldquolarge electrical systemrdquo at the Sandilands project

and it was this company not Kenuthrsquos Electric who despite being paid in full by

Kenuthrsquos Electric for the supply of the Square D system including CTs had shockingly

15

not included it in its order and supply and subsequently delayed the project by several

weeks Dennis Nairn of ACE was required to provide the required CTrsquos for this project

and instead only provided the CT Cabinet although the CTrsquos were in fact noted on the

design documents It baffles the mind that ACE is now acting as an agent of Grant

Thornton when they were the main supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for this project and

didnrsquot perform then Unbelievable

Findings at point 35

1 The direct payment to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work completed on the SRC Project was

authorized by the Contractor and Consultants attached to the formal payment request

The subsequent allegations being made by Shane Gibson in the media with regards the

Exuma Project are deliberately false and reckless There is absolutely no evidence to

confirm his allegations that I telephoned the contractor for the Exuma Mini Hospital and

demanded that he award the contract to Kenuthrsquos Electric Mr Gibson should review the

information in NIBrsquos files including the Board of Directors minutes and the

memorandums of the Director to determine the determination of the Board of Directors

and not assert opinions that can be easily verified to be inaccurate and baseless The facts

are

a NIB Board of Directors agreed to standardize all sub-contractors for the

Abaco and Exuma Hospital ie Electrical Plumbing and Air-condition

b The Architect MEP Engineers and Civil and Structural Engineers were also

standardized as the projects were a duplicate of each other and the Board

considered that for greater efficiency and because of ongoing experiences

with the Sandilands and Ministry of Tourism projects that they wanted a

problem free job and decided to standardize the entire team with the exception

of the General Contractor

c The electrical contractor nominated by the contractor did not have any

experience with any medical facilities or similar facilities did not have an

independent operationbusiness and based on Osbourne Moxeyrsquos analysis did

not appear to have the experience to complete this job ndash please also note NIB

ongoing experience with the Ministry of Tourism building that has had

several electrical fires and this slipshod electrical work was top of mind by

NIBrsquos Project Manager when he and the project consultants recommended

that we standardize all sub-contractors

d Osbourne Moxey and I together spoke with the General Contractor and

outlined the Boardrsquos requirements and advised the contractor that our job was

to advise what the Board had recommended and at the end of the day he was

free to make any decision that he wanted An interview with the General

Contractor could only confirm this statement and nothing else At this point I

16

will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media

by Minister Gibson particularly as these have not been included in the Grant

Thornton report notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have

It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntonrsquos several interviews with NIBrsquos Project Manager

and NIBrsquos Property Managers there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way

that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuthrsquos Electric exclusively In fact it is Osbourne

Moxeyrsquos professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several

occasions to NIBrsquos Board of Directors Minister Gibson and other NIB employees that it was

preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board

complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems but compromising of

our already delicate electrical infrastructure I am therefore confused that the works performed

by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my

behalf particularly I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or

mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

5

The Information Technology (IT) department had full responsibility for the

management of the AIS Contract and this contract included a provision for NIB to

pay for housing costs It is a standard practice for departments and their heads to be

responsible for all cost activities related to their departments

That Mr Raymond Wells Deputy Director IT had the full responsibility for this

contract and his project budget that was approved by the Board of Directors included

housing costs for the AIS Team

That Mr Wells initially approved hotel accommodations for the team and later at

AISrsquo request requested his assistant to secure permanent housing

That the recommendations for hotel and permanent housing were managed

exclusively by Mr Raymond Wells and his team and during this process until the

request for payment was referred to me I had neither involvement nor knowledge of

the process - Mr Wellsrsquo statement and that of his assistant Gail Carey verify this

statement

That I have had no communication with Ms Gail Carey about the rental of the

apartment or with Velma Thompson

That at the time Mr Raymond Wells referred the Payment Request to me on February

26th

which was dated February 25th

I recognized that the name of the company that

the apartment was leased from was that of my brotherrsquos company Jes-El-Car Ltd I

recognized the name as the name is that of my brotherrsquos 3 children ndash Jessica Elliott

and Carla Cargill

I disclosed this to Mr Wells and together on February 26 2012 we telephoned Mr

Patrick Ward explained the circumstances and secured his approval as Chairman of

the Board to proceed with the Lease that was already executed (Mr Patrick Wardrsquos

interview statement to Grant Thornton and his letter to me dated October 11 2012

confirm his awareness and approval of the transaction)

Only after receipt of Mr Wardrsquos approval was the request for payment authorized by

me

It should be noted that the AIS Contract was a ldquocost plus expensesrdquo contract NIBrsquos

Management led directly by Raymond Wells not myself had the fiduciary responsibility to

control costs and secondly the legal responsibility to secure housing for the AIS personnel

whom Mr Wells had approved accommodations for at the Hilton Hotel also without my direct

approval Moreover at their request and reportedly for convenience purposes they requested

that they ldquoimmediatelyrdquo be relocated from the Hilton Hotel to apartment style housing Using

6

the authority delegated to him as the Project Manager and Sponsor for the National Prescription

Drug Plan he approved this project cost as a part of his budget that he fully and independently

controlled

Although Grant Thornton has stated in its Forensic Report that they did not find where Raymond

Wells had the authority to control costs for this project the excerpt from the AIS contract below

explains Mr Wellsrsquo Delegated Authority

Section 3

(a) NIB shall provide airfare accommodation and US$7500 PER DIEM for out of

pocket expenses for all of AISrsquos technical personnel during the implementation

phase and thereafter whenever NIB requests such services

The question of authority to enter the contract was based on the full amount paid over the entire

lease period and although this fell into the entire project budget approved by the Board of

Directors and managed by Mr Wells it excludes the fact that his analysis and decision inputs

were based on the monthly cost viz a viz a similar cost in the hotel for all potential occupants

It should be noted that NIBrsquos Accounts Department led by Sonia Gill acted independently in

approving rental payments for this unit and at no time at the execution of the initial payment

approval by myself or directly to me afterwards is there any documented communication from

Mrs Gill to me expressing any concern with regards to this apartment All communication was

directed by her to Mr Raymond Wells the IT Executive who executed the lease and managed

the entire process Additionally Mrs Gill confirmed to Grant Thornton that there was no policy

to govern this transaction and if this is the case it is not clear what policy I or Raymond Wells

violated Grant Thornton appears to be ldquostretchingrdquo to arrive at a conclusion that has been

elucidated by me in my October 9 2012 communication to Mr Gregory Moss

The comparisons with the Delaporte Apartment indicate a 48 differential in cost This is not a

true comparison as it ignores the requirements of NIB in respect of the apartment the advantages

of the Sandyport Apartment and the inputs Ms Gail Carey used in declaring to the Board of

Directors that in her view the Sandyport apartment was superior in many ways to the Delaporte

apartment In reality both were not comparable as the Delaporte apartment consisted of 2

bedrooms and 1 frac12 bathrooms whereas the Sandyport apartment had 3 bedrooms and 3 frac12

bathrooms which would accommodate a mix of male and female occupants more comfortably

and privately Moreover this input by Grant Thornton ignores the fact that neither of the units

appear to have been independently inspected by their firm to confirm that Ms Careyrsquos decision

inputs were valid

The written statements made by realtors Mr Pat Strachan and Mr William Wong are

contradictory (See appendices 144 and 145) however Grant Thornton summarizes in its report

that both realtors arrived at the same conclusion with regards the Sandyport Apartment costs

Specifically Mr Strachan stated the apartment rate was not within industry standards while Mr

Wong contends the cost was a reasonable one In fact Mr Wong stated in his January 21 2013

7

letter that the cost of electricity was a fair amount because the chance that the tenants will

constantly run central air the electricity bill could be much higher It is curious that this

information was misrepresented in the Grant Thornton report

It is disingenuous and misleading for Grant Thornton to not consider and include as

corroborating and validating points the disclosure made in Patrick Wardrsquos Grant Thornton

interview and corroborating letter that he approved the Sandyport lease and the business reasons

he used as inputs in his decision making process

It should have been considered that once Patrick Ward acting as Chairman of the National

Insurance Board approved the lease of the apartment it was his responsibility to advise the

Board of this approval if he considered it was required and not me This is reiterated in

Cadburyrsquos report of best practices in Corporate Governance It is the Chairmanrsquos responsibility

to ensure that all relevant issues are on the agenda

I attest that I approved only the processing of the payment after I had received the approval of

the lease executed by Raymond Wells from Mr Patrick Ward It was inappropriate for Grant

Thornton to state that Patrick Wardrsquos corroborating letter was an ldquoattempt to create a paper trailrdquo

rather than to confirm in writing what he conveyed personally to the firm during his interview ndash

that he as Chairman of the Board of Directors ultimately approved the apartment lease

I approved the processing of the payment after I had made the full disclosure to Mr Ward in the

presence of Mr Wells and did not participate in the decision making process in regards to the

selection of the Sandyport Apartment lease with my brotherrsquos wholly owned company Jes-El-

Car Ltd

Grant Thornton advises at point 1a in its communication to Marco Rolle dated March 22 2013

that I approved the lease of the Sandyport apartment on ldquoFebruary 20 2010rdquo without the Board

of Directors approval Please provide the evidence used to support firstly the date of such

approval and the allegation that I approved the lease I again affirm that the lease was approved

by Raymond Wells and executed by him The payment was approved by me after I secured the

approval of Mr Patrick Ward the Chairman of the Board of Directors in the presence of

Raymond Wells due to the potential conflict

With regards the allegation of non-disclosure in the Related PartyConflict of Interest Disclosure

form of my appointment as a Director and Vice President of Jes-El-Car Ltd at the time the lease

was executed at the time NIB Disclosure Forms were executed and at the time of my interview

with the Board of Directors I was not aware that I had been appointed by my brother Godwin

Cargill as a Director and Officer of his company In fact the legal test of a conflict of interest

and NIBrsquos policy is whether or not I stood to gain any financial benefit as a result of the conflict

and in this instance I did not My brotherrsquos confirmatory sworn affidavit that was prepared by

Davis and Co the registered office for his company attests to this It should be noted that Grant

Thornton excluded from their Forensic Report the fact that Paul Andy Gomez was formally

advised by Davis amp Corsquos Managing Partner Phillip McKenzie on January 24 2013 ie at least

8

three months prior to finalization of the Forensic Report that Godwin Cargill owned 100 of the

shares of Jes-El-Car Ltd The corroborating statement from Davis amp Co that is now attached to

this communication labeled as Exhibit 3 An excerpt from the Corporate file of Jes-El-Car Ltd

maintained by Davis and Co together with the corroborating statement from Phillip McKenzie

confirm that I have never attended any corporate meetings or signed any company documents

and that I do not own any shares in the company and further that I was not present when the

company was incorporated and there is no evidence in their file that I have participated in any

way either directly or indirectly in the affairs of the company (Exhibit 3)

Although Grant Thornton was aware of this exculpatory information and yet excluded it from the

Forensic Report the firm did include in its Forensic Report who the shareholders and beneficial

owners of the company 700 Islands and Kenuthrsquos Electric Company Ltd were thereby

demonstrating their awareness of the importance ownership is in the test of a Conflict of Interest

I feel that as a result of these apparently deliberate actions acted in a prejudicial manner in

arriving at a conclusion of the facts presented with regards this allegation

Grant Thornton has also ignored in its Forensic Report that the conflict of interest with regards to

the Sandyport apartment was disclosed by Gail Carey in her memo to Raymond Wells dated

March 1 2010 This was in accordance with Point 6 ndash Conflicts of Interest policy statement

page 4 This is very concerning

With regards point 1f) and 2d) Grant Thornton should produce the NIB disclosure forms for the

three years referenced December 31 2010 to December 31 2012 Further according to

International Accounting Standards the cost of the rental expense viz a viz the total expenses of

$160 million on average during this period would not be deemed material and therefore not

included in the Financial Statements in any form of disclosure

In fact PricewaterhouseCoopers explained in its Related Party Clarification note to me with

regards the disclosures made by Patrick Ward re the Bahamas First matter- NIBrsquos Property

Insurance Expense of $15 million annually ldquoIt is important to draw distinction between

financial reporting requirements and best practices management information required by those

charged with governance Transactions with entities influenced by key management personnel

including directors is of significance to those charged with governance and a process has been

established to ensure that such information is brought to the attention of those charged with

governance Financial reporting requires disclosure regarding those transactions which would

influence the decision of users of the financial statements and hence as set out in IAS 24

consideration should be given to significance (the transactions referred) and to whether the

transaction significantly impacts the financial performance or position of the Fund whether or

not done at armrsquos length (we observe that there was a tendering process carried out for general

insurance contracts in accordance with NIBrsquos tendering policyrdquo whether or not outside ordinary

course of business (propertycasualty insurance is required given the extent of properties owned

and managed) and reporting lines for approval (significant contracts required Board Approval

9

which was given) None of the aforementioned factors were present and hence do not require

greater disclosure than provided by management in the consolidated statementsrdquo

The materiality of the Sandyport monthly contract is insignificant in respect of NIBrsquos financial

statements as a whole and the corresponding disclosure requirements Had the additional

disclosure been made it was immaterial to the Financial Statements Moreover a disclosure on

my appointment by my brother to his holding (not operating company) could not have been

made as I was not aware of this appointment at the time of the execution of the lease

With regards point 1g) the minutes referenced October 28 2010 re NIB Cases for Prosecution

this was after the apartment had been rented Further Mr Gregory Collie who managed

compliance on behalf of the Board will confirm that his account was entirely in good standing at

the time of the rental in 2010 and 2011 and the inclusion in the Prosecution Report was an error

by NIB Moreover it was not my responsibility to check or confirm that National Insurance

arrears do not exist and in this case this requirement should have been met by Gail Carey andor

Raymond Wells

In summary this forensic report does not support the serious allegations made in Gregory Mossrsquo

November 8 letter specifically dereliction of duty gross misconduct insubordination gross

negligence and conflict of interest There are absolutely no facts to support any of these

allegations and leads to the conclusion that this allegation has no basis and is not supported with

the facts discovered throughout the forensic investigation conducted

Enclosures 1 - 8

1 Davis amp Co Letter to Paul Andy Gomez Managing Partner Grant Thornton dated

January 24 2013

2 Davis amp Co supplemental letter to Sears and Co dated May 10 2013 and corroborating

Affidavit of Godwin Cargill

3 Declarations of Beneficial Interest in Jes El Car Ltd by Tootsie V Hunter and Debbie

Michelle Gilbert

4 Resolution of the First Meeting of Jes-El-Car Ltd dated June 7 2000 ndash noting that

Algernon Cargill was not present All subsequent resolutions confirm that Algernon

Cargill was not present at any of these meetings

5 Resolutions of Borrowing Authority by Jes-El-Car Ltd ndash Algernon Cargill was not named

in any of these nor was he present at the time these resolutions were executed

6 Related Party Explanation by Gowon Bowe Partner PricewaterhouseCoopers

7 Letter of October 9 2012 by me to Mr Gregory Moss on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

8 Letter of October 11 2012 by Patrick Ward to me on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

10

Allegation 2 ndash The Bahamas First Insurance Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings do not relate to my actions and my Affidavit filed in the Supreme

Court actually has very serious allegations on the conduct of Gregory Moss with regards this

matter

11

Allegation 3 ndash The Kenuthrsquos Electric Issue

Gregory Moss reported and Grant Thornton substantiated that the records of NIB confirm that

the sum of $209361982 was paid directly to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work performed on NIB

properties during the period 9th

December 2008 to 29th

August 2012 According to my

preliminary analysis this amount was $1062360 and according to the Grant Thornton Forensic

Report the Financial Controller also advised on page 80 at point 32 (b) that the amount of

$209361982 does not agree with NIBrsquos records Further Grant Thornton should deduct the

approved payments to Mr Knowles that NIB made on behalf of General Contractors that were

approved by the Project consultants and contractors and recorded as a project disbursement and

the amounts for direct NIB contracts andor the Ministry of Tourism project thereafter the

analysis would then confirm that the amount paid to Mr Knowles for the period 2008-2012

would be in the range of $500000 Moreover I am advised that the rates charged by this

company are within market rates and secondly are less than the rates that NIB is currently being

billed for electrical and air-conditioning services Current invoices reflect a fixed rate of $125

per hour and according to Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report Kenuthrsquos Electric rates were

$3303 to $10505 per hour Moreover further analysis by Grant Thornton would have

confirmed that these rates were not per employee as is the current case at NIB but were for a

minimum of 2 employees dispatched to NIB by the company

With regard to item 32(d) finding that the completion of the installation of parking lot lights at

the Poinciana Hill Building is the only contract found where Kenuthrsquos Electric was engaged by

NIB is inaccurate This work was approved by the Ministry of Health through a tender process

and Purchase Orders (a contract) were issued to Mr Knowles for several other works at NIB that

were recommended by NIB personnel other than me For example the IT Cabling to replace

the wireless financial network was approved by the IT Department the Electrical Upgrade to

NIBrsquos Head Office to facilitate the renovations to the property were approved by the Buildings

Division and any interview of these Department heads would confirm this Notwithstanding it

should be noted that the quantum of work at NIB Head Quarters would appear significant as the

premises were upgraded department by department over the past four (4) years to avoid any

interruption to key services and secondly the IT infrastructure had to be replaced as transactions

in the wireless environment were dropping and financial records were being compromised In

summary Grant Thornton who should be aware that a Purchase Order is a binding agreement

had sight of the Purchase Orders for the IT Networking the installation of the NIB HQ

Lightening Arrestor the details of the direct disbursements made to Kenuthrsquos Electric on behalf

of contractors and the details of all project works including the Ministry of Tourism project and

chose to not include these important facts in its Forensic Report analysis of payments made to

Kenuthrsquos Electric With regards to Grant Thorntonrsquos Findings on page 81 at point 33 and the

misrepresentations by Gregory Moss in his November 8 letter to Shane Gibson the following

clarifying points that Grant Thornton had reviewed and again chose to not clarify in its Forensic

12

Report should be noted

a $22225 - The 50 payment is due in part to the approved purchase order

POPON2M0900080 for the installation of Network cabling for the IT Department

which is supported by an in house requisition form In other words a binding contract

was evident

b $500676 - The purported finding that the new lightening protection system as installed

was completed without the involvement of a Consulting Engineer is inaccurate Kenuthrsquos

Electric would have been required to consult a Certified UL Consultant and or vendor in

order to provide the required lightening protection equipment (grounding copper cables

only from the pole to designated areas) Please also note that to date there are no local

person and or vendor that meets this criteria and the company consulted their USA

supplier for guidance and technical advice and guidance

c $1030534 - The variation in labor rates is a direct result to the level of

Technicianskilled company representative that completed the work Industry standard

rates are normally between $30 - $125 depending upon the level of the vendor

representative completing the tasks on behalf of the engaged company Further NIB is

currently paying rates of $125 per hour for electrical and air-condition works and is

shockingly now using the same electrical contractors the same air-condition contractors

and the same engineers for works on NIBrsquos properties and in most cases without any

tender documents at the time the work is awarded

d This finding is incorrect misleading and appears deliberately false as Grant Thornton

had unrestricted access to all of NIBrsquos records The cost of $880000 was related to the

installation of the lightning arrestor pole at the Head Quarters Building which included

the use of crane services to install the 45ft tapered pole that was designed by a USA

Vendor at the same standard of the Lightening Arrestor at the Miami International

Airport

e The reported finding that $1495875 was expended for specialty crane services is false

The amount of $1495875 was the balance payment due to Kenuthrsquos Electric for the

procurement and installation of the lightening arrestor rod This project was awarded to

Kenuthrsquos Electric following the submission of bids from at least three (3) vendors

including Kenuthrsquos Electric

f Again the statement the amount totaling $1111934 was the culmination of ONLY three

(3) invoices is false and inaccurate The payment of $1111934 included payments of six

(6) invoices to complete networking infrastructure in various buildings and departments

With regard to labour rates please refer to explanation in item (d)

g The hours worked noted was for the disconnection of data lines whips and feeders from

the existing cubicles and to relocate and reconnect the same in newly installed pre-

owned cubicle sections not having the service connections (data and power) properly

13

connected to the units but rather in boxes located in the shipping trailer Kenuthrsquos Electric

was then required to retrieve these items and accurately match the same to the cubicle

sections that were installed by another vendor Additionally in some cases new

additional power and or data lines were required to be installed within the office areas to

accommodate the cubicle sections The work was completed in the Central Benefits

Department and Inspectorate Department and Kenuthrsquos Electric was authorized to

proceed by the IT and Buildings department Again all works are related to the

installation of networking cabling infrastructure

With regards the findings that start of page 84 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report the

following should be noted

33 (b) (i) The labor rates within the invoices are consistent with industry standard labor

rates depending upon the level of the technicianworkman completing the relevant task

As noted above NIB is now paying without question labour rates of $125 for electrical

and air-conditioning work and in most cases these works are not being tendered at the

time of their award

For point 33 (b) (ii) It is highly unlikely that the Accounting Department of NIB would

honor payment for services without the submission of an invoice from a vendor This

statement is misleading and not consistent with the Accounting practices of NIB and

reflects on yet another attempt by Grant Thornton to suggest wrongdoing on the part of

NIB More due diligence is required by Grant Thornton and the statement is an attempt

to cast further aspersions on my character and reputation particularly as Grant Thornton

is fully or should be fully aware of the independent process employed by the Accounting

Department in approving any invoice for payment

For point 33(b) (iii) The statement that Graphite Engineering did not validate the

corrective works at the Ministry of Tourism project is wholly inaccurate and borders on

being reckless and again appears to be deliberately misleading In fact Grant Thornton

and Shane Gibson were purposely advised by NIBrsquos Buildings Department of the process

followed with regards the Ministry of Tourism corrective works performed by another

electrical contractor Kenuthrsquos Electric was required to remediate this work that was

previously approved and certified for payment by the Ministry of Works during the

original construction of the complex in 2005-2007

NIB contracted Graphite Engineering Ltd principal Sonia Brown to identify the

remedial work required in order that the final electrical inspection could be provided by

the Ministry of Works This is very similar to the current situation wherein NIB has

contracted Henry Storr Electric on the same contractual basis that Kenuthrsquos Electric was

contracted Graphite Engineering is a very reputable MEP Engineering firm and is

currently completing additional Engineering Services for two of NIBrsquos major projects

the mini hospitals in Abaco and Exuma Graphite Engineeringrsquos reports are available in

14

NIBrsquos file and will confirm their analysis of the remedial work required and certification

of all works completed according to the Bahamas Electrical Code prior to advancing to

NIB for payment

In addition to Graphite Engineeringrsquos certification NIB contracted Construction Cost

Engineering Services Ltd to certify the cost of every payment for work completed after

Graphite Engineering had confirmed that the work had been completed to their

specifications and satisfaction All invoices were certified by Quantity Surveyors

Construction Cost Engineering prior to any recommendation for payment by NIBrsquos

building department not by me

Grant Thornton had sight of this information all certifications by Graphite and

Construction Cost and elected to not include it in its summary report This is very

curious and shocking

Further under Graphitersquo supervision and direction the estimation of 3 ndash 4 weeks to

complete the remedial works was consistent with their initial scope as noted within their

report which also indicated that their recommendations were solely based upon what

should have been seen and not any defects that were hidden Moreover The Bahamas

Building Code requires that all exit points be adequately designated by illuminated exit

signs in corridors of commercial buildings At the time while Kenuthrsquos Electric was

completing the electrical remedial works it was advised to them by the consultants that

there were no exit signs installed and this is a key requirement for the final inspection

certificate from the Ministry of Works Additionally the cost of electric illuminated exit

signs ranges from $2500 - $3500 per sign excluding installation Further the ldquofindingsrdquo

by Grant Thornton that the Kenuthrsquos Electric billed $30000 for the supply or emergency

lights ballasts exit lights signs and bulbs shows a lack of thoroughness and

completeness in the firmrsquos analysis

For point 33(b)(iv) It is also shocking that Grant Thornton has reported that NO

contracts regarding the SRC Project were available for their review and if this is indeed

the case how could the firm provide any findings of fact with regards the erroneous and

misleading findings in this regard For this reason any statement or finding provided

regarding this project within their report is considered highly speculative and should be

excluded until the firm has reviewed the contracts that are still resident within NIB

Likewise the statement that there was no practical explanation of how CTrsquos on a large

electrical system upgrade could have been overlooked is a good question and should have

been answered readily by Grant Thorntonrsquos own Consultant Applied Consultants amp

Engineers (Dennis Nairn of ACE) This company ACE Dennis Nairn whom Grant

Thornton has reportedly contracted as an ldquoexpertrdquo in the field of electrical works was the

supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for the ldquolarge electrical systemrdquo at the Sandilands project

and it was this company not Kenuthrsquos Electric who despite being paid in full by

Kenuthrsquos Electric for the supply of the Square D system including CTs had shockingly

15

not included it in its order and supply and subsequently delayed the project by several

weeks Dennis Nairn of ACE was required to provide the required CTrsquos for this project

and instead only provided the CT Cabinet although the CTrsquos were in fact noted on the

design documents It baffles the mind that ACE is now acting as an agent of Grant

Thornton when they were the main supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for this project and

didnrsquot perform then Unbelievable

Findings at point 35

1 The direct payment to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work completed on the SRC Project was

authorized by the Contractor and Consultants attached to the formal payment request

The subsequent allegations being made by Shane Gibson in the media with regards the

Exuma Project are deliberately false and reckless There is absolutely no evidence to

confirm his allegations that I telephoned the contractor for the Exuma Mini Hospital and

demanded that he award the contract to Kenuthrsquos Electric Mr Gibson should review the

information in NIBrsquos files including the Board of Directors minutes and the

memorandums of the Director to determine the determination of the Board of Directors

and not assert opinions that can be easily verified to be inaccurate and baseless The facts

are

a NIB Board of Directors agreed to standardize all sub-contractors for the

Abaco and Exuma Hospital ie Electrical Plumbing and Air-condition

b The Architect MEP Engineers and Civil and Structural Engineers were also

standardized as the projects were a duplicate of each other and the Board

considered that for greater efficiency and because of ongoing experiences

with the Sandilands and Ministry of Tourism projects that they wanted a

problem free job and decided to standardize the entire team with the exception

of the General Contractor

c The electrical contractor nominated by the contractor did not have any

experience with any medical facilities or similar facilities did not have an

independent operationbusiness and based on Osbourne Moxeyrsquos analysis did

not appear to have the experience to complete this job ndash please also note NIB

ongoing experience with the Ministry of Tourism building that has had

several electrical fires and this slipshod electrical work was top of mind by

NIBrsquos Project Manager when he and the project consultants recommended

that we standardize all sub-contractors

d Osbourne Moxey and I together spoke with the General Contractor and

outlined the Boardrsquos requirements and advised the contractor that our job was

to advise what the Board had recommended and at the end of the day he was

free to make any decision that he wanted An interview with the General

Contractor could only confirm this statement and nothing else At this point I

16

will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media

by Minister Gibson particularly as these have not been included in the Grant

Thornton report notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have

It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntonrsquos several interviews with NIBrsquos Project Manager

and NIBrsquos Property Managers there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way

that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuthrsquos Electric exclusively In fact it is Osbourne

Moxeyrsquos professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several

occasions to NIBrsquos Board of Directors Minister Gibson and other NIB employees that it was

preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board

complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems but compromising of

our already delicate electrical infrastructure I am therefore confused that the works performed

by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my

behalf particularly I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or

mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

6

the authority delegated to him as the Project Manager and Sponsor for the National Prescription

Drug Plan he approved this project cost as a part of his budget that he fully and independently

controlled

Although Grant Thornton has stated in its Forensic Report that they did not find where Raymond

Wells had the authority to control costs for this project the excerpt from the AIS contract below

explains Mr Wellsrsquo Delegated Authority

Section 3

(a) NIB shall provide airfare accommodation and US$7500 PER DIEM for out of

pocket expenses for all of AISrsquos technical personnel during the implementation

phase and thereafter whenever NIB requests such services

The question of authority to enter the contract was based on the full amount paid over the entire

lease period and although this fell into the entire project budget approved by the Board of

Directors and managed by Mr Wells it excludes the fact that his analysis and decision inputs

were based on the monthly cost viz a viz a similar cost in the hotel for all potential occupants

It should be noted that NIBrsquos Accounts Department led by Sonia Gill acted independently in

approving rental payments for this unit and at no time at the execution of the initial payment

approval by myself or directly to me afterwards is there any documented communication from

Mrs Gill to me expressing any concern with regards to this apartment All communication was

directed by her to Mr Raymond Wells the IT Executive who executed the lease and managed

the entire process Additionally Mrs Gill confirmed to Grant Thornton that there was no policy

to govern this transaction and if this is the case it is not clear what policy I or Raymond Wells

violated Grant Thornton appears to be ldquostretchingrdquo to arrive at a conclusion that has been

elucidated by me in my October 9 2012 communication to Mr Gregory Moss

The comparisons with the Delaporte Apartment indicate a 48 differential in cost This is not a

true comparison as it ignores the requirements of NIB in respect of the apartment the advantages

of the Sandyport Apartment and the inputs Ms Gail Carey used in declaring to the Board of

Directors that in her view the Sandyport apartment was superior in many ways to the Delaporte

apartment In reality both were not comparable as the Delaporte apartment consisted of 2

bedrooms and 1 frac12 bathrooms whereas the Sandyport apartment had 3 bedrooms and 3 frac12

bathrooms which would accommodate a mix of male and female occupants more comfortably

and privately Moreover this input by Grant Thornton ignores the fact that neither of the units

appear to have been independently inspected by their firm to confirm that Ms Careyrsquos decision

inputs were valid

The written statements made by realtors Mr Pat Strachan and Mr William Wong are

contradictory (See appendices 144 and 145) however Grant Thornton summarizes in its report

that both realtors arrived at the same conclusion with regards the Sandyport Apartment costs

Specifically Mr Strachan stated the apartment rate was not within industry standards while Mr

Wong contends the cost was a reasonable one In fact Mr Wong stated in his January 21 2013

7

letter that the cost of electricity was a fair amount because the chance that the tenants will

constantly run central air the electricity bill could be much higher It is curious that this

information was misrepresented in the Grant Thornton report

It is disingenuous and misleading for Grant Thornton to not consider and include as

corroborating and validating points the disclosure made in Patrick Wardrsquos Grant Thornton

interview and corroborating letter that he approved the Sandyport lease and the business reasons

he used as inputs in his decision making process

It should have been considered that once Patrick Ward acting as Chairman of the National

Insurance Board approved the lease of the apartment it was his responsibility to advise the

Board of this approval if he considered it was required and not me This is reiterated in

Cadburyrsquos report of best practices in Corporate Governance It is the Chairmanrsquos responsibility

to ensure that all relevant issues are on the agenda

I attest that I approved only the processing of the payment after I had received the approval of

the lease executed by Raymond Wells from Mr Patrick Ward It was inappropriate for Grant

Thornton to state that Patrick Wardrsquos corroborating letter was an ldquoattempt to create a paper trailrdquo

rather than to confirm in writing what he conveyed personally to the firm during his interview ndash

that he as Chairman of the Board of Directors ultimately approved the apartment lease

I approved the processing of the payment after I had made the full disclosure to Mr Ward in the

presence of Mr Wells and did not participate in the decision making process in regards to the

selection of the Sandyport Apartment lease with my brotherrsquos wholly owned company Jes-El-

Car Ltd

Grant Thornton advises at point 1a in its communication to Marco Rolle dated March 22 2013

that I approved the lease of the Sandyport apartment on ldquoFebruary 20 2010rdquo without the Board

of Directors approval Please provide the evidence used to support firstly the date of such

approval and the allegation that I approved the lease I again affirm that the lease was approved

by Raymond Wells and executed by him The payment was approved by me after I secured the

approval of Mr Patrick Ward the Chairman of the Board of Directors in the presence of

Raymond Wells due to the potential conflict

With regards the allegation of non-disclosure in the Related PartyConflict of Interest Disclosure

form of my appointment as a Director and Vice President of Jes-El-Car Ltd at the time the lease

was executed at the time NIB Disclosure Forms were executed and at the time of my interview

with the Board of Directors I was not aware that I had been appointed by my brother Godwin

Cargill as a Director and Officer of his company In fact the legal test of a conflict of interest

and NIBrsquos policy is whether or not I stood to gain any financial benefit as a result of the conflict

and in this instance I did not My brotherrsquos confirmatory sworn affidavit that was prepared by

Davis and Co the registered office for his company attests to this It should be noted that Grant

Thornton excluded from their Forensic Report the fact that Paul Andy Gomez was formally

advised by Davis amp Corsquos Managing Partner Phillip McKenzie on January 24 2013 ie at least

8

three months prior to finalization of the Forensic Report that Godwin Cargill owned 100 of the

shares of Jes-El-Car Ltd The corroborating statement from Davis amp Co that is now attached to

this communication labeled as Exhibit 3 An excerpt from the Corporate file of Jes-El-Car Ltd

maintained by Davis and Co together with the corroborating statement from Phillip McKenzie

confirm that I have never attended any corporate meetings or signed any company documents

and that I do not own any shares in the company and further that I was not present when the

company was incorporated and there is no evidence in their file that I have participated in any

way either directly or indirectly in the affairs of the company (Exhibit 3)

Although Grant Thornton was aware of this exculpatory information and yet excluded it from the

Forensic Report the firm did include in its Forensic Report who the shareholders and beneficial

owners of the company 700 Islands and Kenuthrsquos Electric Company Ltd were thereby

demonstrating their awareness of the importance ownership is in the test of a Conflict of Interest

I feel that as a result of these apparently deliberate actions acted in a prejudicial manner in

arriving at a conclusion of the facts presented with regards this allegation

Grant Thornton has also ignored in its Forensic Report that the conflict of interest with regards to

the Sandyport apartment was disclosed by Gail Carey in her memo to Raymond Wells dated

March 1 2010 This was in accordance with Point 6 ndash Conflicts of Interest policy statement

page 4 This is very concerning

With regards point 1f) and 2d) Grant Thornton should produce the NIB disclosure forms for the

three years referenced December 31 2010 to December 31 2012 Further according to

International Accounting Standards the cost of the rental expense viz a viz the total expenses of

$160 million on average during this period would not be deemed material and therefore not

included in the Financial Statements in any form of disclosure

In fact PricewaterhouseCoopers explained in its Related Party Clarification note to me with

regards the disclosures made by Patrick Ward re the Bahamas First matter- NIBrsquos Property

Insurance Expense of $15 million annually ldquoIt is important to draw distinction between

financial reporting requirements and best practices management information required by those

charged with governance Transactions with entities influenced by key management personnel

including directors is of significance to those charged with governance and a process has been

established to ensure that such information is brought to the attention of those charged with

governance Financial reporting requires disclosure regarding those transactions which would

influence the decision of users of the financial statements and hence as set out in IAS 24

consideration should be given to significance (the transactions referred) and to whether the

transaction significantly impacts the financial performance or position of the Fund whether or

not done at armrsquos length (we observe that there was a tendering process carried out for general

insurance contracts in accordance with NIBrsquos tendering policyrdquo whether or not outside ordinary

course of business (propertycasualty insurance is required given the extent of properties owned

and managed) and reporting lines for approval (significant contracts required Board Approval

9

which was given) None of the aforementioned factors were present and hence do not require

greater disclosure than provided by management in the consolidated statementsrdquo

The materiality of the Sandyport monthly contract is insignificant in respect of NIBrsquos financial

statements as a whole and the corresponding disclosure requirements Had the additional

disclosure been made it was immaterial to the Financial Statements Moreover a disclosure on

my appointment by my brother to his holding (not operating company) could not have been

made as I was not aware of this appointment at the time of the execution of the lease

With regards point 1g) the minutes referenced October 28 2010 re NIB Cases for Prosecution

this was after the apartment had been rented Further Mr Gregory Collie who managed

compliance on behalf of the Board will confirm that his account was entirely in good standing at

the time of the rental in 2010 and 2011 and the inclusion in the Prosecution Report was an error

by NIB Moreover it was not my responsibility to check or confirm that National Insurance

arrears do not exist and in this case this requirement should have been met by Gail Carey andor

Raymond Wells

In summary this forensic report does not support the serious allegations made in Gregory Mossrsquo

November 8 letter specifically dereliction of duty gross misconduct insubordination gross

negligence and conflict of interest There are absolutely no facts to support any of these

allegations and leads to the conclusion that this allegation has no basis and is not supported with

the facts discovered throughout the forensic investigation conducted

Enclosures 1 - 8

1 Davis amp Co Letter to Paul Andy Gomez Managing Partner Grant Thornton dated

January 24 2013

2 Davis amp Co supplemental letter to Sears and Co dated May 10 2013 and corroborating

Affidavit of Godwin Cargill

3 Declarations of Beneficial Interest in Jes El Car Ltd by Tootsie V Hunter and Debbie

Michelle Gilbert

4 Resolution of the First Meeting of Jes-El-Car Ltd dated June 7 2000 ndash noting that

Algernon Cargill was not present All subsequent resolutions confirm that Algernon

Cargill was not present at any of these meetings

5 Resolutions of Borrowing Authority by Jes-El-Car Ltd ndash Algernon Cargill was not named

in any of these nor was he present at the time these resolutions were executed

6 Related Party Explanation by Gowon Bowe Partner PricewaterhouseCoopers

7 Letter of October 9 2012 by me to Mr Gregory Moss on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

8 Letter of October 11 2012 by Patrick Ward to me on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

10

Allegation 2 ndash The Bahamas First Insurance Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings do not relate to my actions and my Affidavit filed in the Supreme

Court actually has very serious allegations on the conduct of Gregory Moss with regards this

matter

11

Allegation 3 ndash The Kenuthrsquos Electric Issue

Gregory Moss reported and Grant Thornton substantiated that the records of NIB confirm that

the sum of $209361982 was paid directly to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work performed on NIB

properties during the period 9th

December 2008 to 29th

August 2012 According to my

preliminary analysis this amount was $1062360 and according to the Grant Thornton Forensic

Report the Financial Controller also advised on page 80 at point 32 (b) that the amount of

$209361982 does not agree with NIBrsquos records Further Grant Thornton should deduct the

approved payments to Mr Knowles that NIB made on behalf of General Contractors that were

approved by the Project consultants and contractors and recorded as a project disbursement and

the amounts for direct NIB contracts andor the Ministry of Tourism project thereafter the

analysis would then confirm that the amount paid to Mr Knowles for the period 2008-2012

would be in the range of $500000 Moreover I am advised that the rates charged by this

company are within market rates and secondly are less than the rates that NIB is currently being

billed for electrical and air-conditioning services Current invoices reflect a fixed rate of $125

per hour and according to Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report Kenuthrsquos Electric rates were

$3303 to $10505 per hour Moreover further analysis by Grant Thornton would have

confirmed that these rates were not per employee as is the current case at NIB but were for a

minimum of 2 employees dispatched to NIB by the company

With regard to item 32(d) finding that the completion of the installation of parking lot lights at

the Poinciana Hill Building is the only contract found where Kenuthrsquos Electric was engaged by

NIB is inaccurate This work was approved by the Ministry of Health through a tender process

and Purchase Orders (a contract) were issued to Mr Knowles for several other works at NIB that

were recommended by NIB personnel other than me For example the IT Cabling to replace

the wireless financial network was approved by the IT Department the Electrical Upgrade to

NIBrsquos Head Office to facilitate the renovations to the property were approved by the Buildings

Division and any interview of these Department heads would confirm this Notwithstanding it

should be noted that the quantum of work at NIB Head Quarters would appear significant as the

premises were upgraded department by department over the past four (4) years to avoid any

interruption to key services and secondly the IT infrastructure had to be replaced as transactions

in the wireless environment were dropping and financial records were being compromised In

summary Grant Thornton who should be aware that a Purchase Order is a binding agreement

had sight of the Purchase Orders for the IT Networking the installation of the NIB HQ

Lightening Arrestor the details of the direct disbursements made to Kenuthrsquos Electric on behalf

of contractors and the details of all project works including the Ministry of Tourism project and

chose to not include these important facts in its Forensic Report analysis of payments made to

Kenuthrsquos Electric With regards to Grant Thorntonrsquos Findings on page 81 at point 33 and the

misrepresentations by Gregory Moss in his November 8 letter to Shane Gibson the following

clarifying points that Grant Thornton had reviewed and again chose to not clarify in its Forensic

12

Report should be noted

a $22225 - The 50 payment is due in part to the approved purchase order

POPON2M0900080 for the installation of Network cabling for the IT Department

which is supported by an in house requisition form In other words a binding contract

was evident

b $500676 - The purported finding that the new lightening protection system as installed

was completed without the involvement of a Consulting Engineer is inaccurate Kenuthrsquos

Electric would have been required to consult a Certified UL Consultant and or vendor in

order to provide the required lightening protection equipment (grounding copper cables

only from the pole to designated areas) Please also note that to date there are no local

person and or vendor that meets this criteria and the company consulted their USA

supplier for guidance and technical advice and guidance

c $1030534 - The variation in labor rates is a direct result to the level of

Technicianskilled company representative that completed the work Industry standard

rates are normally between $30 - $125 depending upon the level of the vendor

representative completing the tasks on behalf of the engaged company Further NIB is

currently paying rates of $125 per hour for electrical and air-condition works and is

shockingly now using the same electrical contractors the same air-condition contractors

and the same engineers for works on NIBrsquos properties and in most cases without any

tender documents at the time the work is awarded

d This finding is incorrect misleading and appears deliberately false as Grant Thornton

had unrestricted access to all of NIBrsquos records The cost of $880000 was related to the

installation of the lightning arrestor pole at the Head Quarters Building which included

the use of crane services to install the 45ft tapered pole that was designed by a USA

Vendor at the same standard of the Lightening Arrestor at the Miami International

Airport

e The reported finding that $1495875 was expended for specialty crane services is false

The amount of $1495875 was the balance payment due to Kenuthrsquos Electric for the

procurement and installation of the lightening arrestor rod This project was awarded to

Kenuthrsquos Electric following the submission of bids from at least three (3) vendors

including Kenuthrsquos Electric

f Again the statement the amount totaling $1111934 was the culmination of ONLY three

(3) invoices is false and inaccurate The payment of $1111934 included payments of six

(6) invoices to complete networking infrastructure in various buildings and departments

With regard to labour rates please refer to explanation in item (d)

g The hours worked noted was for the disconnection of data lines whips and feeders from

the existing cubicles and to relocate and reconnect the same in newly installed pre-

owned cubicle sections not having the service connections (data and power) properly

13

connected to the units but rather in boxes located in the shipping trailer Kenuthrsquos Electric

was then required to retrieve these items and accurately match the same to the cubicle

sections that were installed by another vendor Additionally in some cases new

additional power and or data lines were required to be installed within the office areas to

accommodate the cubicle sections The work was completed in the Central Benefits

Department and Inspectorate Department and Kenuthrsquos Electric was authorized to

proceed by the IT and Buildings department Again all works are related to the

installation of networking cabling infrastructure

With regards the findings that start of page 84 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report the

following should be noted

33 (b) (i) The labor rates within the invoices are consistent with industry standard labor

rates depending upon the level of the technicianworkman completing the relevant task

As noted above NIB is now paying without question labour rates of $125 for electrical

and air-conditioning work and in most cases these works are not being tendered at the

time of their award

For point 33 (b) (ii) It is highly unlikely that the Accounting Department of NIB would

honor payment for services without the submission of an invoice from a vendor This

statement is misleading and not consistent with the Accounting practices of NIB and

reflects on yet another attempt by Grant Thornton to suggest wrongdoing on the part of

NIB More due diligence is required by Grant Thornton and the statement is an attempt

to cast further aspersions on my character and reputation particularly as Grant Thornton

is fully or should be fully aware of the independent process employed by the Accounting

Department in approving any invoice for payment

For point 33(b) (iii) The statement that Graphite Engineering did not validate the

corrective works at the Ministry of Tourism project is wholly inaccurate and borders on

being reckless and again appears to be deliberately misleading In fact Grant Thornton

and Shane Gibson were purposely advised by NIBrsquos Buildings Department of the process

followed with regards the Ministry of Tourism corrective works performed by another

electrical contractor Kenuthrsquos Electric was required to remediate this work that was

previously approved and certified for payment by the Ministry of Works during the

original construction of the complex in 2005-2007

NIB contracted Graphite Engineering Ltd principal Sonia Brown to identify the

remedial work required in order that the final electrical inspection could be provided by

the Ministry of Works This is very similar to the current situation wherein NIB has

contracted Henry Storr Electric on the same contractual basis that Kenuthrsquos Electric was

contracted Graphite Engineering is a very reputable MEP Engineering firm and is

currently completing additional Engineering Services for two of NIBrsquos major projects

the mini hospitals in Abaco and Exuma Graphite Engineeringrsquos reports are available in

14

NIBrsquos file and will confirm their analysis of the remedial work required and certification

of all works completed according to the Bahamas Electrical Code prior to advancing to

NIB for payment

In addition to Graphite Engineeringrsquos certification NIB contracted Construction Cost

Engineering Services Ltd to certify the cost of every payment for work completed after

Graphite Engineering had confirmed that the work had been completed to their

specifications and satisfaction All invoices were certified by Quantity Surveyors

Construction Cost Engineering prior to any recommendation for payment by NIBrsquos

building department not by me

Grant Thornton had sight of this information all certifications by Graphite and

Construction Cost and elected to not include it in its summary report This is very

curious and shocking

Further under Graphitersquo supervision and direction the estimation of 3 ndash 4 weeks to

complete the remedial works was consistent with their initial scope as noted within their

report which also indicated that their recommendations were solely based upon what

should have been seen and not any defects that were hidden Moreover The Bahamas

Building Code requires that all exit points be adequately designated by illuminated exit

signs in corridors of commercial buildings At the time while Kenuthrsquos Electric was

completing the electrical remedial works it was advised to them by the consultants that

there were no exit signs installed and this is a key requirement for the final inspection

certificate from the Ministry of Works Additionally the cost of electric illuminated exit

signs ranges from $2500 - $3500 per sign excluding installation Further the ldquofindingsrdquo

by Grant Thornton that the Kenuthrsquos Electric billed $30000 for the supply or emergency

lights ballasts exit lights signs and bulbs shows a lack of thoroughness and

completeness in the firmrsquos analysis

For point 33(b)(iv) It is also shocking that Grant Thornton has reported that NO

contracts regarding the SRC Project were available for their review and if this is indeed

the case how could the firm provide any findings of fact with regards the erroneous and

misleading findings in this regard For this reason any statement or finding provided

regarding this project within their report is considered highly speculative and should be

excluded until the firm has reviewed the contracts that are still resident within NIB

Likewise the statement that there was no practical explanation of how CTrsquos on a large

electrical system upgrade could have been overlooked is a good question and should have

been answered readily by Grant Thorntonrsquos own Consultant Applied Consultants amp

Engineers (Dennis Nairn of ACE) This company ACE Dennis Nairn whom Grant

Thornton has reportedly contracted as an ldquoexpertrdquo in the field of electrical works was the

supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for the ldquolarge electrical systemrdquo at the Sandilands project

and it was this company not Kenuthrsquos Electric who despite being paid in full by

Kenuthrsquos Electric for the supply of the Square D system including CTs had shockingly

15

not included it in its order and supply and subsequently delayed the project by several

weeks Dennis Nairn of ACE was required to provide the required CTrsquos for this project

and instead only provided the CT Cabinet although the CTrsquos were in fact noted on the

design documents It baffles the mind that ACE is now acting as an agent of Grant

Thornton when they were the main supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for this project and

didnrsquot perform then Unbelievable

Findings at point 35

1 The direct payment to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work completed on the SRC Project was

authorized by the Contractor and Consultants attached to the formal payment request

The subsequent allegations being made by Shane Gibson in the media with regards the

Exuma Project are deliberately false and reckless There is absolutely no evidence to

confirm his allegations that I telephoned the contractor for the Exuma Mini Hospital and

demanded that he award the contract to Kenuthrsquos Electric Mr Gibson should review the

information in NIBrsquos files including the Board of Directors minutes and the

memorandums of the Director to determine the determination of the Board of Directors

and not assert opinions that can be easily verified to be inaccurate and baseless The facts

are

a NIB Board of Directors agreed to standardize all sub-contractors for the

Abaco and Exuma Hospital ie Electrical Plumbing and Air-condition

b The Architect MEP Engineers and Civil and Structural Engineers were also

standardized as the projects were a duplicate of each other and the Board

considered that for greater efficiency and because of ongoing experiences

with the Sandilands and Ministry of Tourism projects that they wanted a

problem free job and decided to standardize the entire team with the exception

of the General Contractor

c The electrical contractor nominated by the contractor did not have any

experience with any medical facilities or similar facilities did not have an

independent operationbusiness and based on Osbourne Moxeyrsquos analysis did

not appear to have the experience to complete this job ndash please also note NIB

ongoing experience with the Ministry of Tourism building that has had

several electrical fires and this slipshod electrical work was top of mind by

NIBrsquos Project Manager when he and the project consultants recommended

that we standardize all sub-contractors

d Osbourne Moxey and I together spoke with the General Contractor and

outlined the Boardrsquos requirements and advised the contractor that our job was

to advise what the Board had recommended and at the end of the day he was

free to make any decision that he wanted An interview with the General

Contractor could only confirm this statement and nothing else At this point I

16

will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media

by Minister Gibson particularly as these have not been included in the Grant

Thornton report notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have

It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntonrsquos several interviews with NIBrsquos Project Manager

and NIBrsquos Property Managers there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way

that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuthrsquos Electric exclusively In fact it is Osbourne

Moxeyrsquos professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several

occasions to NIBrsquos Board of Directors Minister Gibson and other NIB employees that it was

preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board

complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems but compromising of

our already delicate electrical infrastructure I am therefore confused that the works performed

by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my

behalf particularly I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or

mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

7

letter that the cost of electricity was a fair amount because the chance that the tenants will

constantly run central air the electricity bill could be much higher It is curious that this

information was misrepresented in the Grant Thornton report

It is disingenuous and misleading for Grant Thornton to not consider and include as

corroborating and validating points the disclosure made in Patrick Wardrsquos Grant Thornton

interview and corroborating letter that he approved the Sandyport lease and the business reasons

he used as inputs in his decision making process

It should have been considered that once Patrick Ward acting as Chairman of the National

Insurance Board approved the lease of the apartment it was his responsibility to advise the

Board of this approval if he considered it was required and not me This is reiterated in

Cadburyrsquos report of best practices in Corporate Governance It is the Chairmanrsquos responsibility

to ensure that all relevant issues are on the agenda

I attest that I approved only the processing of the payment after I had received the approval of

the lease executed by Raymond Wells from Mr Patrick Ward It was inappropriate for Grant

Thornton to state that Patrick Wardrsquos corroborating letter was an ldquoattempt to create a paper trailrdquo

rather than to confirm in writing what he conveyed personally to the firm during his interview ndash

that he as Chairman of the Board of Directors ultimately approved the apartment lease

I approved the processing of the payment after I had made the full disclosure to Mr Ward in the

presence of Mr Wells and did not participate in the decision making process in regards to the

selection of the Sandyport Apartment lease with my brotherrsquos wholly owned company Jes-El-

Car Ltd

Grant Thornton advises at point 1a in its communication to Marco Rolle dated March 22 2013

that I approved the lease of the Sandyport apartment on ldquoFebruary 20 2010rdquo without the Board

of Directors approval Please provide the evidence used to support firstly the date of such

approval and the allegation that I approved the lease I again affirm that the lease was approved

by Raymond Wells and executed by him The payment was approved by me after I secured the

approval of Mr Patrick Ward the Chairman of the Board of Directors in the presence of

Raymond Wells due to the potential conflict

With regards the allegation of non-disclosure in the Related PartyConflict of Interest Disclosure

form of my appointment as a Director and Vice President of Jes-El-Car Ltd at the time the lease

was executed at the time NIB Disclosure Forms were executed and at the time of my interview

with the Board of Directors I was not aware that I had been appointed by my brother Godwin

Cargill as a Director and Officer of his company In fact the legal test of a conflict of interest

and NIBrsquos policy is whether or not I stood to gain any financial benefit as a result of the conflict

and in this instance I did not My brotherrsquos confirmatory sworn affidavit that was prepared by

Davis and Co the registered office for his company attests to this It should be noted that Grant

Thornton excluded from their Forensic Report the fact that Paul Andy Gomez was formally

advised by Davis amp Corsquos Managing Partner Phillip McKenzie on January 24 2013 ie at least

8

three months prior to finalization of the Forensic Report that Godwin Cargill owned 100 of the

shares of Jes-El-Car Ltd The corroborating statement from Davis amp Co that is now attached to

this communication labeled as Exhibit 3 An excerpt from the Corporate file of Jes-El-Car Ltd

maintained by Davis and Co together with the corroborating statement from Phillip McKenzie

confirm that I have never attended any corporate meetings or signed any company documents

and that I do not own any shares in the company and further that I was not present when the

company was incorporated and there is no evidence in their file that I have participated in any

way either directly or indirectly in the affairs of the company (Exhibit 3)

Although Grant Thornton was aware of this exculpatory information and yet excluded it from the

Forensic Report the firm did include in its Forensic Report who the shareholders and beneficial

owners of the company 700 Islands and Kenuthrsquos Electric Company Ltd were thereby

demonstrating their awareness of the importance ownership is in the test of a Conflict of Interest

I feel that as a result of these apparently deliberate actions acted in a prejudicial manner in

arriving at a conclusion of the facts presented with regards this allegation

Grant Thornton has also ignored in its Forensic Report that the conflict of interest with regards to

the Sandyport apartment was disclosed by Gail Carey in her memo to Raymond Wells dated

March 1 2010 This was in accordance with Point 6 ndash Conflicts of Interest policy statement

page 4 This is very concerning

With regards point 1f) and 2d) Grant Thornton should produce the NIB disclosure forms for the

three years referenced December 31 2010 to December 31 2012 Further according to

International Accounting Standards the cost of the rental expense viz a viz the total expenses of

$160 million on average during this period would not be deemed material and therefore not

included in the Financial Statements in any form of disclosure

In fact PricewaterhouseCoopers explained in its Related Party Clarification note to me with

regards the disclosures made by Patrick Ward re the Bahamas First matter- NIBrsquos Property

Insurance Expense of $15 million annually ldquoIt is important to draw distinction between

financial reporting requirements and best practices management information required by those

charged with governance Transactions with entities influenced by key management personnel

including directors is of significance to those charged with governance and a process has been

established to ensure that such information is brought to the attention of those charged with

governance Financial reporting requires disclosure regarding those transactions which would

influence the decision of users of the financial statements and hence as set out in IAS 24

consideration should be given to significance (the transactions referred) and to whether the

transaction significantly impacts the financial performance or position of the Fund whether or

not done at armrsquos length (we observe that there was a tendering process carried out for general

insurance contracts in accordance with NIBrsquos tendering policyrdquo whether or not outside ordinary

course of business (propertycasualty insurance is required given the extent of properties owned

and managed) and reporting lines for approval (significant contracts required Board Approval

9

which was given) None of the aforementioned factors were present and hence do not require

greater disclosure than provided by management in the consolidated statementsrdquo

The materiality of the Sandyport monthly contract is insignificant in respect of NIBrsquos financial

statements as a whole and the corresponding disclosure requirements Had the additional

disclosure been made it was immaterial to the Financial Statements Moreover a disclosure on

my appointment by my brother to his holding (not operating company) could not have been

made as I was not aware of this appointment at the time of the execution of the lease

With regards point 1g) the minutes referenced October 28 2010 re NIB Cases for Prosecution

this was after the apartment had been rented Further Mr Gregory Collie who managed

compliance on behalf of the Board will confirm that his account was entirely in good standing at

the time of the rental in 2010 and 2011 and the inclusion in the Prosecution Report was an error

by NIB Moreover it was not my responsibility to check or confirm that National Insurance

arrears do not exist and in this case this requirement should have been met by Gail Carey andor

Raymond Wells

In summary this forensic report does not support the serious allegations made in Gregory Mossrsquo

November 8 letter specifically dereliction of duty gross misconduct insubordination gross

negligence and conflict of interest There are absolutely no facts to support any of these

allegations and leads to the conclusion that this allegation has no basis and is not supported with

the facts discovered throughout the forensic investigation conducted

Enclosures 1 - 8

1 Davis amp Co Letter to Paul Andy Gomez Managing Partner Grant Thornton dated

January 24 2013

2 Davis amp Co supplemental letter to Sears and Co dated May 10 2013 and corroborating

Affidavit of Godwin Cargill

3 Declarations of Beneficial Interest in Jes El Car Ltd by Tootsie V Hunter and Debbie

Michelle Gilbert

4 Resolution of the First Meeting of Jes-El-Car Ltd dated June 7 2000 ndash noting that

Algernon Cargill was not present All subsequent resolutions confirm that Algernon

Cargill was not present at any of these meetings

5 Resolutions of Borrowing Authority by Jes-El-Car Ltd ndash Algernon Cargill was not named

in any of these nor was he present at the time these resolutions were executed

6 Related Party Explanation by Gowon Bowe Partner PricewaterhouseCoopers

7 Letter of October 9 2012 by me to Mr Gregory Moss on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

8 Letter of October 11 2012 by Patrick Ward to me on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

10

Allegation 2 ndash The Bahamas First Insurance Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings do not relate to my actions and my Affidavit filed in the Supreme

Court actually has very serious allegations on the conduct of Gregory Moss with regards this

matter

11

Allegation 3 ndash The Kenuthrsquos Electric Issue

Gregory Moss reported and Grant Thornton substantiated that the records of NIB confirm that

the sum of $209361982 was paid directly to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work performed on NIB

properties during the period 9th

December 2008 to 29th

August 2012 According to my

preliminary analysis this amount was $1062360 and according to the Grant Thornton Forensic

Report the Financial Controller also advised on page 80 at point 32 (b) that the amount of

$209361982 does not agree with NIBrsquos records Further Grant Thornton should deduct the

approved payments to Mr Knowles that NIB made on behalf of General Contractors that were

approved by the Project consultants and contractors and recorded as a project disbursement and

the amounts for direct NIB contracts andor the Ministry of Tourism project thereafter the

analysis would then confirm that the amount paid to Mr Knowles for the period 2008-2012

would be in the range of $500000 Moreover I am advised that the rates charged by this

company are within market rates and secondly are less than the rates that NIB is currently being

billed for electrical and air-conditioning services Current invoices reflect a fixed rate of $125

per hour and according to Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report Kenuthrsquos Electric rates were

$3303 to $10505 per hour Moreover further analysis by Grant Thornton would have

confirmed that these rates were not per employee as is the current case at NIB but were for a

minimum of 2 employees dispatched to NIB by the company

With regard to item 32(d) finding that the completion of the installation of parking lot lights at

the Poinciana Hill Building is the only contract found where Kenuthrsquos Electric was engaged by

NIB is inaccurate This work was approved by the Ministry of Health through a tender process

and Purchase Orders (a contract) were issued to Mr Knowles for several other works at NIB that

were recommended by NIB personnel other than me For example the IT Cabling to replace

the wireless financial network was approved by the IT Department the Electrical Upgrade to

NIBrsquos Head Office to facilitate the renovations to the property were approved by the Buildings

Division and any interview of these Department heads would confirm this Notwithstanding it

should be noted that the quantum of work at NIB Head Quarters would appear significant as the

premises were upgraded department by department over the past four (4) years to avoid any

interruption to key services and secondly the IT infrastructure had to be replaced as transactions

in the wireless environment were dropping and financial records were being compromised In

summary Grant Thornton who should be aware that a Purchase Order is a binding agreement

had sight of the Purchase Orders for the IT Networking the installation of the NIB HQ

Lightening Arrestor the details of the direct disbursements made to Kenuthrsquos Electric on behalf

of contractors and the details of all project works including the Ministry of Tourism project and

chose to not include these important facts in its Forensic Report analysis of payments made to

Kenuthrsquos Electric With regards to Grant Thorntonrsquos Findings on page 81 at point 33 and the

misrepresentations by Gregory Moss in his November 8 letter to Shane Gibson the following

clarifying points that Grant Thornton had reviewed and again chose to not clarify in its Forensic

12

Report should be noted

a $22225 - The 50 payment is due in part to the approved purchase order

POPON2M0900080 for the installation of Network cabling for the IT Department

which is supported by an in house requisition form In other words a binding contract

was evident

b $500676 - The purported finding that the new lightening protection system as installed

was completed without the involvement of a Consulting Engineer is inaccurate Kenuthrsquos

Electric would have been required to consult a Certified UL Consultant and or vendor in

order to provide the required lightening protection equipment (grounding copper cables

only from the pole to designated areas) Please also note that to date there are no local

person and or vendor that meets this criteria and the company consulted their USA

supplier for guidance and technical advice and guidance

c $1030534 - The variation in labor rates is a direct result to the level of

Technicianskilled company representative that completed the work Industry standard

rates are normally between $30 - $125 depending upon the level of the vendor

representative completing the tasks on behalf of the engaged company Further NIB is

currently paying rates of $125 per hour for electrical and air-condition works and is

shockingly now using the same electrical contractors the same air-condition contractors

and the same engineers for works on NIBrsquos properties and in most cases without any

tender documents at the time the work is awarded

d This finding is incorrect misleading and appears deliberately false as Grant Thornton

had unrestricted access to all of NIBrsquos records The cost of $880000 was related to the

installation of the lightning arrestor pole at the Head Quarters Building which included

the use of crane services to install the 45ft tapered pole that was designed by a USA

Vendor at the same standard of the Lightening Arrestor at the Miami International

Airport

e The reported finding that $1495875 was expended for specialty crane services is false

The amount of $1495875 was the balance payment due to Kenuthrsquos Electric for the

procurement and installation of the lightening arrestor rod This project was awarded to

Kenuthrsquos Electric following the submission of bids from at least three (3) vendors

including Kenuthrsquos Electric

f Again the statement the amount totaling $1111934 was the culmination of ONLY three

(3) invoices is false and inaccurate The payment of $1111934 included payments of six

(6) invoices to complete networking infrastructure in various buildings and departments

With regard to labour rates please refer to explanation in item (d)

g The hours worked noted was for the disconnection of data lines whips and feeders from

the existing cubicles and to relocate and reconnect the same in newly installed pre-

owned cubicle sections not having the service connections (data and power) properly

13

connected to the units but rather in boxes located in the shipping trailer Kenuthrsquos Electric

was then required to retrieve these items and accurately match the same to the cubicle

sections that were installed by another vendor Additionally in some cases new

additional power and or data lines were required to be installed within the office areas to

accommodate the cubicle sections The work was completed in the Central Benefits

Department and Inspectorate Department and Kenuthrsquos Electric was authorized to

proceed by the IT and Buildings department Again all works are related to the

installation of networking cabling infrastructure

With regards the findings that start of page 84 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report the

following should be noted

33 (b) (i) The labor rates within the invoices are consistent with industry standard labor

rates depending upon the level of the technicianworkman completing the relevant task

As noted above NIB is now paying without question labour rates of $125 for electrical

and air-conditioning work and in most cases these works are not being tendered at the

time of their award

For point 33 (b) (ii) It is highly unlikely that the Accounting Department of NIB would

honor payment for services without the submission of an invoice from a vendor This

statement is misleading and not consistent with the Accounting practices of NIB and

reflects on yet another attempt by Grant Thornton to suggest wrongdoing on the part of

NIB More due diligence is required by Grant Thornton and the statement is an attempt

to cast further aspersions on my character and reputation particularly as Grant Thornton

is fully or should be fully aware of the independent process employed by the Accounting

Department in approving any invoice for payment

For point 33(b) (iii) The statement that Graphite Engineering did not validate the

corrective works at the Ministry of Tourism project is wholly inaccurate and borders on

being reckless and again appears to be deliberately misleading In fact Grant Thornton

and Shane Gibson were purposely advised by NIBrsquos Buildings Department of the process

followed with regards the Ministry of Tourism corrective works performed by another

electrical contractor Kenuthrsquos Electric was required to remediate this work that was

previously approved and certified for payment by the Ministry of Works during the

original construction of the complex in 2005-2007

NIB contracted Graphite Engineering Ltd principal Sonia Brown to identify the

remedial work required in order that the final electrical inspection could be provided by

the Ministry of Works This is very similar to the current situation wherein NIB has

contracted Henry Storr Electric on the same contractual basis that Kenuthrsquos Electric was

contracted Graphite Engineering is a very reputable MEP Engineering firm and is

currently completing additional Engineering Services for two of NIBrsquos major projects

the mini hospitals in Abaco and Exuma Graphite Engineeringrsquos reports are available in

14

NIBrsquos file and will confirm their analysis of the remedial work required and certification

of all works completed according to the Bahamas Electrical Code prior to advancing to

NIB for payment

In addition to Graphite Engineeringrsquos certification NIB contracted Construction Cost

Engineering Services Ltd to certify the cost of every payment for work completed after

Graphite Engineering had confirmed that the work had been completed to their

specifications and satisfaction All invoices were certified by Quantity Surveyors

Construction Cost Engineering prior to any recommendation for payment by NIBrsquos

building department not by me

Grant Thornton had sight of this information all certifications by Graphite and

Construction Cost and elected to not include it in its summary report This is very

curious and shocking

Further under Graphitersquo supervision and direction the estimation of 3 ndash 4 weeks to

complete the remedial works was consistent with their initial scope as noted within their

report which also indicated that their recommendations were solely based upon what

should have been seen and not any defects that were hidden Moreover The Bahamas

Building Code requires that all exit points be adequately designated by illuminated exit

signs in corridors of commercial buildings At the time while Kenuthrsquos Electric was

completing the electrical remedial works it was advised to them by the consultants that

there were no exit signs installed and this is a key requirement for the final inspection

certificate from the Ministry of Works Additionally the cost of electric illuminated exit

signs ranges from $2500 - $3500 per sign excluding installation Further the ldquofindingsrdquo

by Grant Thornton that the Kenuthrsquos Electric billed $30000 for the supply or emergency

lights ballasts exit lights signs and bulbs shows a lack of thoroughness and

completeness in the firmrsquos analysis

For point 33(b)(iv) It is also shocking that Grant Thornton has reported that NO

contracts regarding the SRC Project were available for their review and if this is indeed

the case how could the firm provide any findings of fact with regards the erroneous and

misleading findings in this regard For this reason any statement or finding provided

regarding this project within their report is considered highly speculative and should be

excluded until the firm has reviewed the contracts that are still resident within NIB

Likewise the statement that there was no practical explanation of how CTrsquos on a large

electrical system upgrade could have been overlooked is a good question and should have

been answered readily by Grant Thorntonrsquos own Consultant Applied Consultants amp

Engineers (Dennis Nairn of ACE) This company ACE Dennis Nairn whom Grant

Thornton has reportedly contracted as an ldquoexpertrdquo in the field of electrical works was the

supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for the ldquolarge electrical systemrdquo at the Sandilands project

and it was this company not Kenuthrsquos Electric who despite being paid in full by

Kenuthrsquos Electric for the supply of the Square D system including CTs had shockingly

15

not included it in its order and supply and subsequently delayed the project by several

weeks Dennis Nairn of ACE was required to provide the required CTrsquos for this project

and instead only provided the CT Cabinet although the CTrsquos were in fact noted on the

design documents It baffles the mind that ACE is now acting as an agent of Grant

Thornton when they were the main supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for this project and

didnrsquot perform then Unbelievable

Findings at point 35

1 The direct payment to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work completed on the SRC Project was

authorized by the Contractor and Consultants attached to the formal payment request

The subsequent allegations being made by Shane Gibson in the media with regards the

Exuma Project are deliberately false and reckless There is absolutely no evidence to

confirm his allegations that I telephoned the contractor for the Exuma Mini Hospital and

demanded that he award the contract to Kenuthrsquos Electric Mr Gibson should review the

information in NIBrsquos files including the Board of Directors minutes and the

memorandums of the Director to determine the determination of the Board of Directors

and not assert opinions that can be easily verified to be inaccurate and baseless The facts

are

a NIB Board of Directors agreed to standardize all sub-contractors for the

Abaco and Exuma Hospital ie Electrical Plumbing and Air-condition

b The Architect MEP Engineers and Civil and Structural Engineers were also

standardized as the projects were a duplicate of each other and the Board

considered that for greater efficiency and because of ongoing experiences

with the Sandilands and Ministry of Tourism projects that they wanted a

problem free job and decided to standardize the entire team with the exception

of the General Contractor

c The electrical contractor nominated by the contractor did not have any

experience with any medical facilities or similar facilities did not have an

independent operationbusiness and based on Osbourne Moxeyrsquos analysis did

not appear to have the experience to complete this job ndash please also note NIB

ongoing experience with the Ministry of Tourism building that has had

several electrical fires and this slipshod electrical work was top of mind by

NIBrsquos Project Manager when he and the project consultants recommended

that we standardize all sub-contractors

d Osbourne Moxey and I together spoke with the General Contractor and

outlined the Boardrsquos requirements and advised the contractor that our job was

to advise what the Board had recommended and at the end of the day he was

free to make any decision that he wanted An interview with the General

Contractor could only confirm this statement and nothing else At this point I

16

will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media

by Minister Gibson particularly as these have not been included in the Grant

Thornton report notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have

It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntonrsquos several interviews with NIBrsquos Project Manager

and NIBrsquos Property Managers there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way

that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuthrsquos Electric exclusively In fact it is Osbourne

Moxeyrsquos professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several

occasions to NIBrsquos Board of Directors Minister Gibson and other NIB employees that it was

preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board

complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems but compromising of

our already delicate electrical infrastructure I am therefore confused that the works performed

by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my

behalf particularly I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or

mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

8

three months prior to finalization of the Forensic Report that Godwin Cargill owned 100 of the

shares of Jes-El-Car Ltd The corroborating statement from Davis amp Co that is now attached to

this communication labeled as Exhibit 3 An excerpt from the Corporate file of Jes-El-Car Ltd

maintained by Davis and Co together with the corroborating statement from Phillip McKenzie

confirm that I have never attended any corporate meetings or signed any company documents

and that I do not own any shares in the company and further that I was not present when the

company was incorporated and there is no evidence in their file that I have participated in any

way either directly or indirectly in the affairs of the company (Exhibit 3)

Although Grant Thornton was aware of this exculpatory information and yet excluded it from the

Forensic Report the firm did include in its Forensic Report who the shareholders and beneficial

owners of the company 700 Islands and Kenuthrsquos Electric Company Ltd were thereby

demonstrating their awareness of the importance ownership is in the test of a Conflict of Interest

I feel that as a result of these apparently deliberate actions acted in a prejudicial manner in

arriving at a conclusion of the facts presented with regards this allegation

Grant Thornton has also ignored in its Forensic Report that the conflict of interest with regards to

the Sandyport apartment was disclosed by Gail Carey in her memo to Raymond Wells dated

March 1 2010 This was in accordance with Point 6 ndash Conflicts of Interest policy statement

page 4 This is very concerning

With regards point 1f) and 2d) Grant Thornton should produce the NIB disclosure forms for the

three years referenced December 31 2010 to December 31 2012 Further according to

International Accounting Standards the cost of the rental expense viz a viz the total expenses of

$160 million on average during this period would not be deemed material and therefore not

included in the Financial Statements in any form of disclosure

In fact PricewaterhouseCoopers explained in its Related Party Clarification note to me with

regards the disclosures made by Patrick Ward re the Bahamas First matter- NIBrsquos Property

Insurance Expense of $15 million annually ldquoIt is important to draw distinction between

financial reporting requirements and best practices management information required by those

charged with governance Transactions with entities influenced by key management personnel

including directors is of significance to those charged with governance and a process has been

established to ensure that such information is brought to the attention of those charged with

governance Financial reporting requires disclosure regarding those transactions which would

influence the decision of users of the financial statements and hence as set out in IAS 24

consideration should be given to significance (the transactions referred) and to whether the

transaction significantly impacts the financial performance or position of the Fund whether or

not done at armrsquos length (we observe that there was a tendering process carried out for general

insurance contracts in accordance with NIBrsquos tendering policyrdquo whether or not outside ordinary

course of business (propertycasualty insurance is required given the extent of properties owned

and managed) and reporting lines for approval (significant contracts required Board Approval

9

which was given) None of the aforementioned factors were present and hence do not require

greater disclosure than provided by management in the consolidated statementsrdquo

The materiality of the Sandyport monthly contract is insignificant in respect of NIBrsquos financial

statements as a whole and the corresponding disclosure requirements Had the additional

disclosure been made it was immaterial to the Financial Statements Moreover a disclosure on

my appointment by my brother to his holding (not operating company) could not have been

made as I was not aware of this appointment at the time of the execution of the lease

With regards point 1g) the minutes referenced October 28 2010 re NIB Cases for Prosecution

this was after the apartment had been rented Further Mr Gregory Collie who managed

compliance on behalf of the Board will confirm that his account was entirely in good standing at

the time of the rental in 2010 and 2011 and the inclusion in the Prosecution Report was an error

by NIB Moreover it was not my responsibility to check or confirm that National Insurance

arrears do not exist and in this case this requirement should have been met by Gail Carey andor

Raymond Wells

In summary this forensic report does not support the serious allegations made in Gregory Mossrsquo

November 8 letter specifically dereliction of duty gross misconduct insubordination gross

negligence and conflict of interest There are absolutely no facts to support any of these

allegations and leads to the conclusion that this allegation has no basis and is not supported with

the facts discovered throughout the forensic investigation conducted

Enclosures 1 - 8

1 Davis amp Co Letter to Paul Andy Gomez Managing Partner Grant Thornton dated

January 24 2013

2 Davis amp Co supplemental letter to Sears and Co dated May 10 2013 and corroborating

Affidavit of Godwin Cargill

3 Declarations of Beneficial Interest in Jes El Car Ltd by Tootsie V Hunter and Debbie

Michelle Gilbert

4 Resolution of the First Meeting of Jes-El-Car Ltd dated June 7 2000 ndash noting that

Algernon Cargill was not present All subsequent resolutions confirm that Algernon

Cargill was not present at any of these meetings

5 Resolutions of Borrowing Authority by Jes-El-Car Ltd ndash Algernon Cargill was not named

in any of these nor was he present at the time these resolutions were executed

6 Related Party Explanation by Gowon Bowe Partner PricewaterhouseCoopers

7 Letter of October 9 2012 by me to Mr Gregory Moss on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

8 Letter of October 11 2012 by Patrick Ward to me on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

10

Allegation 2 ndash The Bahamas First Insurance Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings do not relate to my actions and my Affidavit filed in the Supreme

Court actually has very serious allegations on the conduct of Gregory Moss with regards this

matter

11

Allegation 3 ndash The Kenuthrsquos Electric Issue

Gregory Moss reported and Grant Thornton substantiated that the records of NIB confirm that

the sum of $209361982 was paid directly to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work performed on NIB

properties during the period 9th

December 2008 to 29th

August 2012 According to my

preliminary analysis this amount was $1062360 and according to the Grant Thornton Forensic

Report the Financial Controller also advised on page 80 at point 32 (b) that the amount of

$209361982 does not agree with NIBrsquos records Further Grant Thornton should deduct the

approved payments to Mr Knowles that NIB made on behalf of General Contractors that were

approved by the Project consultants and contractors and recorded as a project disbursement and

the amounts for direct NIB contracts andor the Ministry of Tourism project thereafter the

analysis would then confirm that the amount paid to Mr Knowles for the period 2008-2012

would be in the range of $500000 Moreover I am advised that the rates charged by this

company are within market rates and secondly are less than the rates that NIB is currently being

billed for electrical and air-conditioning services Current invoices reflect a fixed rate of $125

per hour and according to Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report Kenuthrsquos Electric rates were

$3303 to $10505 per hour Moreover further analysis by Grant Thornton would have

confirmed that these rates were not per employee as is the current case at NIB but were for a

minimum of 2 employees dispatched to NIB by the company

With regard to item 32(d) finding that the completion of the installation of parking lot lights at

the Poinciana Hill Building is the only contract found where Kenuthrsquos Electric was engaged by

NIB is inaccurate This work was approved by the Ministry of Health through a tender process

and Purchase Orders (a contract) were issued to Mr Knowles for several other works at NIB that

were recommended by NIB personnel other than me For example the IT Cabling to replace

the wireless financial network was approved by the IT Department the Electrical Upgrade to

NIBrsquos Head Office to facilitate the renovations to the property were approved by the Buildings

Division and any interview of these Department heads would confirm this Notwithstanding it

should be noted that the quantum of work at NIB Head Quarters would appear significant as the

premises were upgraded department by department over the past four (4) years to avoid any

interruption to key services and secondly the IT infrastructure had to be replaced as transactions

in the wireless environment were dropping and financial records were being compromised In

summary Grant Thornton who should be aware that a Purchase Order is a binding agreement

had sight of the Purchase Orders for the IT Networking the installation of the NIB HQ

Lightening Arrestor the details of the direct disbursements made to Kenuthrsquos Electric on behalf

of contractors and the details of all project works including the Ministry of Tourism project and

chose to not include these important facts in its Forensic Report analysis of payments made to

Kenuthrsquos Electric With regards to Grant Thorntonrsquos Findings on page 81 at point 33 and the

misrepresentations by Gregory Moss in his November 8 letter to Shane Gibson the following

clarifying points that Grant Thornton had reviewed and again chose to not clarify in its Forensic

12

Report should be noted

a $22225 - The 50 payment is due in part to the approved purchase order

POPON2M0900080 for the installation of Network cabling for the IT Department

which is supported by an in house requisition form In other words a binding contract

was evident

b $500676 - The purported finding that the new lightening protection system as installed

was completed without the involvement of a Consulting Engineer is inaccurate Kenuthrsquos

Electric would have been required to consult a Certified UL Consultant and or vendor in

order to provide the required lightening protection equipment (grounding copper cables

only from the pole to designated areas) Please also note that to date there are no local

person and or vendor that meets this criteria and the company consulted their USA

supplier for guidance and technical advice and guidance

c $1030534 - The variation in labor rates is a direct result to the level of

Technicianskilled company representative that completed the work Industry standard

rates are normally between $30 - $125 depending upon the level of the vendor

representative completing the tasks on behalf of the engaged company Further NIB is

currently paying rates of $125 per hour for electrical and air-condition works and is

shockingly now using the same electrical contractors the same air-condition contractors

and the same engineers for works on NIBrsquos properties and in most cases without any

tender documents at the time the work is awarded

d This finding is incorrect misleading and appears deliberately false as Grant Thornton

had unrestricted access to all of NIBrsquos records The cost of $880000 was related to the

installation of the lightning arrestor pole at the Head Quarters Building which included

the use of crane services to install the 45ft tapered pole that was designed by a USA

Vendor at the same standard of the Lightening Arrestor at the Miami International

Airport

e The reported finding that $1495875 was expended for specialty crane services is false

The amount of $1495875 was the balance payment due to Kenuthrsquos Electric for the

procurement and installation of the lightening arrestor rod This project was awarded to

Kenuthrsquos Electric following the submission of bids from at least three (3) vendors

including Kenuthrsquos Electric

f Again the statement the amount totaling $1111934 was the culmination of ONLY three

(3) invoices is false and inaccurate The payment of $1111934 included payments of six

(6) invoices to complete networking infrastructure in various buildings and departments

With regard to labour rates please refer to explanation in item (d)

g The hours worked noted was for the disconnection of data lines whips and feeders from

the existing cubicles and to relocate and reconnect the same in newly installed pre-

owned cubicle sections not having the service connections (data and power) properly

13

connected to the units but rather in boxes located in the shipping trailer Kenuthrsquos Electric

was then required to retrieve these items and accurately match the same to the cubicle

sections that were installed by another vendor Additionally in some cases new

additional power and or data lines were required to be installed within the office areas to

accommodate the cubicle sections The work was completed in the Central Benefits

Department and Inspectorate Department and Kenuthrsquos Electric was authorized to

proceed by the IT and Buildings department Again all works are related to the

installation of networking cabling infrastructure

With regards the findings that start of page 84 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report the

following should be noted

33 (b) (i) The labor rates within the invoices are consistent with industry standard labor

rates depending upon the level of the technicianworkman completing the relevant task

As noted above NIB is now paying without question labour rates of $125 for electrical

and air-conditioning work and in most cases these works are not being tendered at the

time of their award

For point 33 (b) (ii) It is highly unlikely that the Accounting Department of NIB would

honor payment for services without the submission of an invoice from a vendor This

statement is misleading and not consistent with the Accounting practices of NIB and

reflects on yet another attempt by Grant Thornton to suggest wrongdoing on the part of

NIB More due diligence is required by Grant Thornton and the statement is an attempt

to cast further aspersions on my character and reputation particularly as Grant Thornton

is fully or should be fully aware of the independent process employed by the Accounting

Department in approving any invoice for payment

For point 33(b) (iii) The statement that Graphite Engineering did not validate the

corrective works at the Ministry of Tourism project is wholly inaccurate and borders on

being reckless and again appears to be deliberately misleading In fact Grant Thornton

and Shane Gibson were purposely advised by NIBrsquos Buildings Department of the process

followed with regards the Ministry of Tourism corrective works performed by another

electrical contractor Kenuthrsquos Electric was required to remediate this work that was

previously approved and certified for payment by the Ministry of Works during the

original construction of the complex in 2005-2007

NIB contracted Graphite Engineering Ltd principal Sonia Brown to identify the

remedial work required in order that the final electrical inspection could be provided by

the Ministry of Works This is very similar to the current situation wherein NIB has

contracted Henry Storr Electric on the same contractual basis that Kenuthrsquos Electric was

contracted Graphite Engineering is a very reputable MEP Engineering firm and is

currently completing additional Engineering Services for two of NIBrsquos major projects

the mini hospitals in Abaco and Exuma Graphite Engineeringrsquos reports are available in

14

NIBrsquos file and will confirm their analysis of the remedial work required and certification

of all works completed according to the Bahamas Electrical Code prior to advancing to

NIB for payment

In addition to Graphite Engineeringrsquos certification NIB contracted Construction Cost

Engineering Services Ltd to certify the cost of every payment for work completed after

Graphite Engineering had confirmed that the work had been completed to their

specifications and satisfaction All invoices were certified by Quantity Surveyors

Construction Cost Engineering prior to any recommendation for payment by NIBrsquos

building department not by me

Grant Thornton had sight of this information all certifications by Graphite and

Construction Cost and elected to not include it in its summary report This is very

curious and shocking

Further under Graphitersquo supervision and direction the estimation of 3 ndash 4 weeks to

complete the remedial works was consistent with their initial scope as noted within their

report which also indicated that their recommendations were solely based upon what

should have been seen and not any defects that were hidden Moreover The Bahamas

Building Code requires that all exit points be adequately designated by illuminated exit

signs in corridors of commercial buildings At the time while Kenuthrsquos Electric was

completing the electrical remedial works it was advised to them by the consultants that

there were no exit signs installed and this is a key requirement for the final inspection

certificate from the Ministry of Works Additionally the cost of electric illuminated exit

signs ranges from $2500 - $3500 per sign excluding installation Further the ldquofindingsrdquo

by Grant Thornton that the Kenuthrsquos Electric billed $30000 for the supply or emergency

lights ballasts exit lights signs and bulbs shows a lack of thoroughness and

completeness in the firmrsquos analysis

For point 33(b)(iv) It is also shocking that Grant Thornton has reported that NO

contracts regarding the SRC Project were available for their review and if this is indeed

the case how could the firm provide any findings of fact with regards the erroneous and

misleading findings in this regard For this reason any statement or finding provided

regarding this project within their report is considered highly speculative and should be

excluded until the firm has reviewed the contracts that are still resident within NIB

Likewise the statement that there was no practical explanation of how CTrsquos on a large

electrical system upgrade could have been overlooked is a good question and should have

been answered readily by Grant Thorntonrsquos own Consultant Applied Consultants amp

Engineers (Dennis Nairn of ACE) This company ACE Dennis Nairn whom Grant

Thornton has reportedly contracted as an ldquoexpertrdquo in the field of electrical works was the

supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for the ldquolarge electrical systemrdquo at the Sandilands project

and it was this company not Kenuthrsquos Electric who despite being paid in full by

Kenuthrsquos Electric for the supply of the Square D system including CTs had shockingly

15

not included it in its order and supply and subsequently delayed the project by several

weeks Dennis Nairn of ACE was required to provide the required CTrsquos for this project

and instead only provided the CT Cabinet although the CTrsquos were in fact noted on the

design documents It baffles the mind that ACE is now acting as an agent of Grant

Thornton when they were the main supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for this project and

didnrsquot perform then Unbelievable

Findings at point 35

1 The direct payment to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work completed on the SRC Project was

authorized by the Contractor and Consultants attached to the formal payment request

The subsequent allegations being made by Shane Gibson in the media with regards the

Exuma Project are deliberately false and reckless There is absolutely no evidence to

confirm his allegations that I telephoned the contractor for the Exuma Mini Hospital and

demanded that he award the contract to Kenuthrsquos Electric Mr Gibson should review the

information in NIBrsquos files including the Board of Directors minutes and the

memorandums of the Director to determine the determination of the Board of Directors

and not assert opinions that can be easily verified to be inaccurate and baseless The facts

are

a NIB Board of Directors agreed to standardize all sub-contractors for the

Abaco and Exuma Hospital ie Electrical Plumbing and Air-condition

b The Architect MEP Engineers and Civil and Structural Engineers were also

standardized as the projects were a duplicate of each other and the Board

considered that for greater efficiency and because of ongoing experiences

with the Sandilands and Ministry of Tourism projects that they wanted a

problem free job and decided to standardize the entire team with the exception

of the General Contractor

c The electrical contractor nominated by the contractor did not have any

experience with any medical facilities or similar facilities did not have an

independent operationbusiness and based on Osbourne Moxeyrsquos analysis did

not appear to have the experience to complete this job ndash please also note NIB

ongoing experience with the Ministry of Tourism building that has had

several electrical fires and this slipshod electrical work was top of mind by

NIBrsquos Project Manager when he and the project consultants recommended

that we standardize all sub-contractors

d Osbourne Moxey and I together spoke with the General Contractor and

outlined the Boardrsquos requirements and advised the contractor that our job was

to advise what the Board had recommended and at the end of the day he was

free to make any decision that he wanted An interview with the General

Contractor could only confirm this statement and nothing else At this point I

16

will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media

by Minister Gibson particularly as these have not been included in the Grant

Thornton report notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have

It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntonrsquos several interviews with NIBrsquos Project Manager

and NIBrsquos Property Managers there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way

that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuthrsquos Electric exclusively In fact it is Osbourne

Moxeyrsquos professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several

occasions to NIBrsquos Board of Directors Minister Gibson and other NIB employees that it was

preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board

complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems but compromising of

our already delicate electrical infrastructure I am therefore confused that the works performed

by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my

behalf particularly I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or

mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

9

which was given) None of the aforementioned factors were present and hence do not require

greater disclosure than provided by management in the consolidated statementsrdquo

The materiality of the Sandyport monthly contract is insignificant in respect of NIBrsquos financial

statements as a whole and the corresponding disclosure requirements Had the additional

disclosure been made it was immaterial to the Financial Statements Moreover a disclosure on

my appointment by my brother to his holding (not operating company) could not have been

made as I was not aware of this appointment at the time of the execution of the lease

With regards point 1g) the minutes referenced October 28 2010 re NIB Cases for Prosecution

this was after the apartment had been rented Further Mr Gregory Collie who managed

compliance on behalf of the Board will confirm that his account was entirely in good standing at

the time of the rental in 2010 and 2011 and the inclusion in the Prosecution Report was an error

by NIB Moreover it was not my responsibility to check or confirm that National Insurance

arrears do not exist and in this case this requirement should have been met by Gail Carey andor

Raymond Wells

In summary this forensic report does not support the serious allegations made in Gregory Mossrsquo

November 8 letter specifically dereliction of duty gross misconduct insubordination gross

negligence and conflict of interest There are absolutely no facts to support any of these

allegations and leads to the conclusion that this allegation has no basis and is not supported with

the facts discovered throughout the forensic investigation conducted

Enclosures 1 - 8

1 Davis amp Co Letter to Paul Andy Gomez Managing Partner Grant Thornton dated

January 24 2013

2 Davis amp Co supplemental letter to Sears and Co dated May 10 2013 and corroborating

Affidavit of Godwin Cargill

3 Declarations of Beneficial Interest in Jes El Car Ltd by Tootsie V Hunter and Debbie

Michelle Gilbert

4 Resolution of the First Meeting of Jes-El-Car Ltd dated June 7 2000 ndash noting that

Algernon Cargill was not present All subsequent resolutions confirm that Algernon

Cargill was not present at any of these meetings

5 Resolutions of Borrowing Authority by Jes-El-Car Ltd ndash Algernon Cargill was not named

in any of these nor was he present at the time these resolutions were executed

6 Related Party Explanation by Gowon Bowe Partner PricewaterhouseCoopers

7 Letter of October 9 2012 by me to Mr Gregory Moss on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

8 Letter of October 11 2012 by Patrick Ward to me on the Jes-El-Car Ltd matter

10

Allegation 2 ndash The Bahamas First Insurance Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings do not relate to my actions and my Affidavit filed in the Supreme

Court actually has very serious allegations on the conduct of Gregory Moss with regards this

matter

11

Allegation 3 ndash The Kenuthrsquos Electric Issue

Gregory Moss reported and Grant Thornton substantiated that the records of NIB confirm that

the sum of $209361982 was paid directly to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work performed on NIB

properties during the period 9th

December 2008 to 29th

August 2012 According to my

preliminary analysis this amount was $1062360 and according to the Grant Thornton Forensic

Report the Financial Controller also advised on page 80 at point 32 (b) that the amount of

$209361982 does not agree with NIBrsquos records Further Grant Thornton should deduct the

approved payments to Mr Knowles that NIB made on behalf of General Contractors that were

approved by the Project consultants and contractors and recorded as a project disbursement and

the amounts for direct NIB contracts andor the Ministry of Tourism project thereafter the

analysis would then confirm that the amount paid to Mr Knowles for the period 2008-2012

would be in the range of $500000 Moreover I am advised that the rates charged by this

company are within market rates and secondly are less than the rates that NIB is currently being

billed for electrical and air-conditioning services Current invoices reflect a fixed rate of $125

per hour and according to Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report Kenuthrsquos Electric rates were

$3303 to $10505 per hour Moreover further analysis by Grant Thornton would have

confirmed that these rates were not per employee as is the current case at NIB but were for a

minimum of 2 employees dispatched to NIB by the company

With regard to item 32(d) finding that the completion of the installation of parking lot lights at

the Poinciana Hill Building is the only contract found where Kenuthrsquos Electric was engaged by

NIB is inaccurate This work was approved by the Ministry of Health through a tender process

and Purchase Orders (a contract) were issued to Mr Knowles for several other works at NIB that

were recommended by NIB personnel other than me For example the IT Cabling to replace

the wireless financial network was approved by the IT Department the Electrical Upgrade to

NIBrsquos Head Office to facilitate the renovations to the property were approved by the Buildings

Division and any interview of these Department heads would confirm this Notwithstanding it

should be noted that the quantum of work at NIB Head Quarters would appear significant as the

premises were upgraded department by department over the past four (4) years to avoid any

interruption to key services and secondly the IT infrastructure had to be replaced as transactions

in the wireless environment were dropping and financial records were being compromised In

summary Grant Thornton who should be aware that a Purchase Order is a binding agreement

had sight of the Purchase Orders for the IT Networking the installation of the NIB HQ

Lightening Arrestor the details of the direct disbursements made to Kenuthrsquos Electric on behalf

of contractors and the details of all project works including the Ministry of Tourism project and

chose to not include these important facts in its Forensic Report analysis of payments made to

Kenuthrsquos Electric With regards to Grant Thorntonrsquos Findings on page 81 at point 33 and the

misrepresentations by Gregory Moss in his November 8 letter to Shane Gibson the following

clarifying points that Grant Thornton had reviewed and again chose to not clarify in its Forensic

12

Report should be noted

a $22225 - The 50 payment is due in part to the approved purchase order

POPON2M0900080 for the installation of Network cabling for the IT Department

which is supported by an in house requisition form In other words a binding contract

was evident

b $500676 - The purported finding that the new lightening protection system as installed

was completed without the involvement of a Consulting Engineer is inaccurate Kenuthrsquos

Electric would have been required to consult a Certified UL Consultant and or vendor in

order to provide the required lightening protection equipment (grounding copper cables

only from the pole to designated areas) Please also note that to date there are no local

person and or vendor that meets this criteria and the company consulted their USA

supplier for guidance and technical advice and guidance

c $1030534 - The variation in labor rates is a direct result to the level of

Technicianskilled company representative that completed the work Industry standard

rates are normally between $30 - $125 depending upon the level of the vendor

representative completing the tasks on behalf of the engaged company Further NIB is

currently paying rates of $125 per hour for electrical and air-condition works and is

shockingly now using the same electrical contractors the same air-condition contractors

and the same engineers for works on NIBrsquos properties and in most cases without any

tender documents at the time the work is awarded

d This finding is incorrect misleading and appears deliberately false as Grant Thornton

had unrestricted access to all of NIBrsquos records The cost of $880000 was related to the

installation of the lightning arrestor pole at the Head Quarters Building which included

the use of crane services to install the 45ft tapered pole that was designed by a USA

Vendor at the same standard of the Lightening Arrestor at the Miami International

Airport

e The reported finding that $1495875 was expended for specialty crane services is false

The amount of $1495875 was the balance payment due to Kenuthrsquos Electric for the

procurement and installation of the lightening arrestor rod This project was awarded to

Kenuthrsquos Electric following the submission of bids from at least three (3) vendors

including Kenuthrsquos Electric

f Again the statement the amount totaling $1111934 was the culmination of ONLY three

(3) invoices is false and inaccurate The payment of $1111934 included payments of six

(6) invoices to complete networking infrastructure in various buildings and departments

With regard to labour rates please refer to explanation in item (d)

g The hours worked noted was for the disconnection of data lines whips and feeders from

the existing cubicles and to relocate and reconnect the same in newly installed pre-

owned cubicle sections not having the service connections (data and power) properly

13

connected to the units but rather in boxes located in the shipping trailer Kenuthrsquos Electric

was then required to retrieve these items and accurately match the same to the cubicle

sections that were installed by another vendor Additionally in some cases new

additional power and or data lines were required to be installed within the office areas to

accommodate the cubicle sections The work was completed in the Central Benefits

Department and Inspectorate Department and Kenuthrsquos Electric was authorized to

proceed by the IT and Buildings department Again all works are related to the

installation of networking cabling infrastructure

With regards the findings that start of page 84 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report the

following should be noted

33 (b) (i) The labor rates within the invoices are consistent with industry standard labor

rates depending upon the level of the technicianworkman completing the relevant task

As noted above NIB is now paying without question labour rates of $125 for electrical

and air-conditioning work and in most cases these works are not being tendered at the

time of their award

For point 33 (b) (ii) It is highly unlikely that the Accounting Department of NIB would

honor payment for services without the submission of an invoice from a vendor This

statement is misleading and not consistent with the Accounting practices of NIB and

reflects on yet another attempt by Grant Thornton to suggest wrongdoing on the part of

NIB More due diligence is required by Grant Thornton and the statement is an attempt

to cast further aspersions on my character and reputation particularly as Grant Thornton

is fully or should be fully aware of the independent process employed by the Accounting

Department in approving any invoice for payment

For point 33(b) (iii) The statement that Graphite Engineering did not validate the

corrective works at the Ministry of Tourism project is wholly inaccurate and borders on

being reckless and again appears to be deliberately misleading In fact Grant Thornton

and Shane Gibson were purposely advised by NIBrsquos Buildings Department of the process

followed with regards the Ministry of Tourism corrective works performed by another

electrical contractor Kenuthrsquos Electric was required to remediate this work that was

previously approved and certified for payment by the Ministry of Works during the

original construction of the complex in 2005-2007

NIB contracted Graphite Engineering Ltd principal Sonia Brown to identify the

remedial work required in order that the final electrical inspection could be provided by

the Ministry of Works This is very similar to the current situation wherein NIB has

contracted Henry Storr Electric on the same contractual basis that Kenuthrsquos Electric was

contracted Graphite Engineering is a very reputable MEP Engineering firm and is

currently completing additional Engineering Services for two of NIBrsquos major projects

the mini hospitals in Abaco and Exuma Graphite Engineeringrsquos reports are available in

14

NIBrsquos file and will confirm their analysis of the remedial work required and certification

of all works completed according to the Bahamas Electrical Code prior to advancing to

NIB for payment

In addition to Graphite Engineeringrsquos certification NIB contracted Construction Cost

Engineering Services Ltd to certify the cost of every payment for work completed after

Graphite Engineering had confirmed that the work had been completed to their

specifications and satisfaction All invoices were certified by Quantity Surveyors

Construction Cost Engineering prior to any recommendation for payment by NIBrsquos

building department not by me

Grant Thornton had sight of this information all certifications by Graphite and

Construction Cost and elected to not include it in its summary report This is very

curious and shocking

Further under Graphitersquo supervision and direction the estimation of 3 ndash 4 weeks to

complete the remedial works was consistent with their initial scope as noted within their

report which also indicated that their recommendations were solely based upon what

should have been seen and not any defects that were hidden Moreover The Bahamas

Building Code requires that all exit points be adequately designated by illuminated exit

signs in corridors of commercial buildings At the time while Kenuthrsquos Electric was

completing the electrical remedial works it was advised to them by the consultants that

there were no exit signs installed and this is a key requirement for the final inspection

certificate from the Ministry of Works Additionally the cost of electric illuminated exit

signs ranges from $2500 - $3500 per sign excluding installation Further the ldquofindingsrdquo

by Grant Thornton that the Kenuthrsquos Electric billed $30000 for the supply or emergency

lights ballasts exit lights signs and bulbs shows a lack of thoroughness and

completeness in the firmrsquos analysis

For point 33(b)(iv) It is also shocking that Grant Thornton has reported that NO

contracts regarding the SRC Project were available for their review and if this is indeed

the case how could the firm provide any findings of fact with regards the erroneous and

misleading findings in this regard For this reason any statement or finding provided

regarding this project within their report is considered highly speculative and should be

excluded until the firm has reviewed the contracts that are still resident within NIB

Likewise the statement that there was no practical explanation of how CTrsquos on a large

electrical system upgrade could have been overlooked is a good question and should have

been answered readily by Grant Thorntonrsquos own Consultant Applied Consultants amp

Engineers (Dennis Nairn of ACE) This company ACE Dennis Nairn whom Grant

Thornton has reportedly contracted as an ldquoexpertrdquo in the field of electrical works was the

supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for the ldquolarge electrical systemrdquo at the Sandilands project

and it was this company not Kenuthrsquos Electric who despite being paid in full by

Kenuthrsquos Electric for the supply of the Square D system including CTs had shockingly

15

not included it in its order and supply and subsequently delayed the project by several

weeks Dennis Nairn of ACE was required to provide the required CTrsquos for this project

and instead only provided the CT Cabinet although the CTrsquos were in fact noted on the

design documents It baffles the mind that ACE is now acting as an agent of Grant

Thornton when they were the main supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for this project and

didnrsquot perform then Unbelievable

Findings at point 35

1 The direct payment to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work completed on the SRC Project was

authorized by the Contractor and Consultants attached to the formal payment request

The subsequent allegations being made by Shane Gibson in the media with regards the

Exuma Project are deliberately false and reckless There is absolutely no evidence to

confirm his allegations that I telephoned the contractor for the Exuma Mini Hospital and

demanded that he award the contract to Kenuthrsquos Electric Mr Gibson should review the

information in NIBrsquos files including the Board of Directors minutes and the

memorandums of the Director to determine the determination of the Board of Directors

and not assert opinions that can be easily verified to be inaccurate and baseless The facts

are

a NIB Board of Directors agreed to standardize all sub-contractors for the

Abaco and Exuma Hospital ie Electrical Plumbing and Air-condition

b The Architect MEP Engineers and Civil and Structural Engineers were also

standardized as the projects were a duplicate of each other and the Board

considered that for greater efficiency and because of ongoing experiences

with the Sandilands and Ministry of Tourism projects that they wanted a

problem free job and decided to standardize the entire team with the exception

of the General Contractor

c The electrical contractor nominated by the contractor did not have any

experience with any medical facilities or similar facilities did not have an

independent operationbusiness and based on Osbourne Moxeyrsquos analysis did

not appear to have the experience to complete this job ndash please also note NIB

ongoing experience with the Ministry of Tourism building that has had

several electrical fires and this slipshod electrical work was top of mind by

NIBrsquos Project Manager when he and the project consultants recommended

that we standardize all sub-contractors

d Osbourne Moxey and I together spoke with the General Contractor and

outlined the Boardrsquos requirements and advised the contractor that our job was

to advise what the Board had recommended and at the end of the day he was

free to make any decision that he wanted An interview with the General

Contractor could only confirm this statement and nothing else At this point I

16

will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media

by Minister Gibson particularly as these have not been included in the Grant

Thornton report notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have

It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntonrsquos several interviews with NIBrsquos Project Manager

and NIBrsquos Property Managers there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way

that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuthrsquos Electric exclusively In fact it is Osbourne

Moxeyrsquos professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several

occasions to NIBrsquos Board of Directors Minister Gibson and other NIB employees that it was

preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board

complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems but compromising of

our already delicate electrical infrastructure I am therefore confused that the works performed

by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my

behalf particularly I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or

mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

10

Allegation 2 ndash The Bahamas First Insurance Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings do not relate to my actions and my Affidavit filed in the Supreme

Court actually has very serious allegations on the conduct of Gregory Moss with regards this

matter

11

Allegation 3 ndash The Kenuthrsquos Electric Issue

Gregory Moss reported and Grant Thornton substantiated that the records of NIB confirm that

the sum of $209361982 was paid directly to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work performed on NIB

properties during the period 9th

December 2008 to 29th

August 2012 According to my

preliminary analysis this amount was $1062360 and according to the Grant Thornton Forensic

Report the Financial Controller also advised on page 80 at point 32 (b) that the amount of

$209361982 does not agree with NIBrsquos records Further Grant Thornton should deduct the

approved payments to Mr Knowles that NIB made on behalf of General Contractors that were

approved by the Project consultants and contractors and recorded as a project disbursement and

the amounts for direct NIB contracts andor the Ministry of Tourism project thereafter the

analysis would then confirm that the amount paid to Mr Knowles for the period 2008-2012

would be in the range of $500000 Moreover I am advised that the rates charged by this

company are within market rates and secondly are less than the rates that NIB is currently being

billed for electrical and air-conditioning services Current invoices reflect a fixed rate of $125

per hour and according to Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report Kenuthrsquos Electric rates were

$3303 to $10505 per hour Moreover further analysis by Grant Thornton would have

confirmed that these rates were not per employee as is the current case at NIB but were for a

minimum of 2 employees dispatched to NIB by the company

With regard to item 32(d) finding that the completion of the installation of parking lot lights at

the Poinciana Hill Building is the only contract found where Kenuthrsquos Electric was engaged by

NIB is inaccurate This work was approved by the Ministry of Health through a tender process

and Purchase Orders (a contract) were issued to Mr Knowles for several other works at NIB that

were recommended by NIB personnel other than me For example the IT Cabling to replace

the wireless financial network was approved by the IT Department the Electrical Upgrade to

NIBrsquos Head Office to facilitate the renovations to the property were approved by the Buildings

Division and any interview of these Department heads would confirm this Notwithstanding it

should be noted that the quantum of work at NIB Head Quarters would appear significant as the

premises were upgraded department by department over the past four (4) years to avoid any

interruption to key services and secondly the IT infrastructure had to be replaced as transactions

in the wireless environment were dropping and financial records were being compromised In

summary Grant Thornton who should be aware that a Purchase Order is a binding agreement

had sight of the Purchase Orders for the IT Networking the installation of the NIB HQ

Lightening Arrestor the details of the direct disbursements made to Kenuthrsquos Electric on behalf

of contractors and the details of all project works including the Ministry of Tourism project and

chose to not include these important facts in its Forensic Report analysis of payments made to

Kenuthrsquos Electric With regards to Grant Thorntonrsquos Findings on page 81 at point 33 and the

misrepresentations by Gregory Moss in his November 8 letter to Shane Gibson the following

clarifying points that Grant Thornton had reviewed and again chose to not clarify in its Forensic

12

Report should be noted

a $22225 - The 50 payment is due in part to the approved purchase order

POPON2M0900080 for the installation of Network cabling for the IT Department

which is supported by an in house requisition form In other words a binding contract

was evident

b $500676 - The purported finding that the new lightening protection system as installed

was completed without the involvement of a Consulting Engineer is inaccurate Kenuthrsquos

Electric would have been required to consult a Certified UL Consultant and or vendor in

order to provide the required lightening protection equipment (grounding copper cables

only from the pole to designated areas) Please also note that to date there are no local

person and or vendor that meets this criteria and the company consulted their USA

supplier for guidance and technical advice and guidance

c $1030534 - The variation in labor rates is a direct result to the level of

Technicianskilled company representative that completed the work Industry standard

rates are normally between $30 - $125 depending upon the level of the vendor

representative completing the tasks on behalf of the engaged company Further NIB is

currently paying rates of $125 per hour for electrical and air-condition works and is

shockingly now using the same electrical contractors the same air-condition contractors

and the same engineers for works on NIBrsquos properties and in most cases without any

tender documents at the time the work is awarded

d This finding is incorrect misleading and appears deliberately false as Grant Thornton

had unrestricted access to all of NIBrsquos records The cost of $880000 was related to the

installation of the lightning arrestor pole at the Head Quarters Building which included

the use of crane services to install the 45ft tapered pole that was designed by a USA

Vendor at the same standard of the Lightening Arrestor at the Miami International

Airport

e The reported finding that $1495875 was expended for specialty crane services is false

The amount of $1495875 was the balance payment due to Kenuthrsquos Electric for the

procurement and installation of the lightening arrestor rod This project was awarded to

Kenuthrsquos Electric following the submission of bids from at least three (3) vendors

including Kenuthrsquos Electric

f Again the statement the amount totaling $1111934 was the culmination of ONLY three

(3) invoices is false and inaccurate The payment of $1111934 included payments of six

(6) invoices to complete networking infrastructure in various buildings and departments

With regard to labour rates please refer to explanation in item (d)

g The hours worked noted was for the disconnection of data lines whips and feeders from

the existing cubicles and to relocate and reconnect the same in newly installed pre-

owned cubicle sections not having the service connections (data and power) properly

13

connected to the units but rather in boxes located in the shipping trailer Kenuthrsquos Electric

was then required to retrieve these items and accurately match the same to the cubicle

sections that were installed by another vendor Additionally in some cases new

additional power and or data lines were required to be installed within the office areas to

accommodate the cubicle sections The work was completed in the Central Benefits

Department and Inspectorate Department and Kenuthrsquos Electric was authorized to

proceed by the IT and Buildings department Again all works are related to the

installation of networking cabling infrastructure

With regards the findings that start of page 84 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report the

following should be noted

33 (b) (i) The labor rates within the invoices are consistent with industry standard labor

rates depending upon the level of the technicianworkman completing the relevant task

As noted above NIB is now paying without question labour rates of $125 for electrical

and air-conditioning work and in most cases these works are not being tendered at the

time of their award

For point 33 (b) (ii) It is highly unlikely that the Accounting Department of NIB would

honor payment for services without the submission of an invoice from a vendor This

statement is misleading and not consistent with the Accounting practices of NIB and

reflects on yet another attempt by Grant Thornton to suggest wrongdoing on the part of

NIB More due diligence is required by Grant Thornton and the statement is an attempt

to cast further aspersions on my character and reputation particularly as Grant Thornton

is fully or should be fully aware of the independent process employed by the Accounting

Department in approving any invoice for payment

For point 33(b) (iii) The statement that Graphite Engineering did not validate the

corrective works at the Ministry of Tourism project is wholly inaccurate and borders on

being reckless and again appears to be deliberately misleading In fact Grant Thornton

and Shane Gibson were purposely advised by NIBrsquos Buildings Department of the process

followed with regards the Ministry of Tourism corrective works performed by another

electrical contractor Kenuthrsquos Electric was required to remediate this work that was

previously approved and certified for payment by the Ministry of Works during the

original construction of the complex in 2005-2007

NIB contracted Graphite Engineering Ltd principal Sonia Brown to identify the

remedial work required in order that the final electrical inspection could be provided by

the Ministry of Works This is very similar to the current situation wherein NIB has

contracted Henry Storr Electric on the same contractual basis that Kenuthrsquos Electric was

contracted Graphite Engineering is a very reputable MEP Engineering firm and is

currently completing additional Engineering Services for two of NIBrsquos major projects

the mini hospitals in Abaco and Exuma Graphite Engineeringrsquos reports are available in

14

NIBrsquos file and will confirm their analysis of the remedial work required and certification

of all works completed according to the Bahamas Electrical Code prior to advancing to

NIB for payment

In addition to Graphite Engineeringrsquos certification NIB contracted Construction Cost

Engineering Services Ltd to certify the cost of every payment for work completed after

Graphite Engineering had confirmed that the work had been completed to their

specifications and satisfaction All invoices were certified by Quantity Surveyors

Construction Cost Engineering prior to any recommendation for payment by NIBrsquos

building department not by me

Grant Thornton had sight of this information all certifications by Graphite and

Construction Cost and elected to not include it in its summary report This is very

curious and shocking

Further under Graphitersquo supervision and direction the estimation of 3 ndash 4 weeks to

complete the remedial works was consistent with their initial scope as noted within their

report which also indicated that their recommendations were solely based upon what

should have been seen and not any defects that were hidden Moreover The Bahamas

Building Code requires that all exit points be adequately designated by illuminated exit

signs in corridors of commercial buildings At the time while Kenuthrsquos Electric was

completing the electrical remedial works it was advised to them by the consultants that

there were no exit signs installed and this is a key requirement for the final inspection

certificate from the Ministry of Works Additionally the cost of electric illuminated exit

signs ranges from $2500 - $3500 per sign excluding installation Further the ldquofindingsrdquo

by Grant Thornton that the Kenuthrsquos Electric billed $30000 for the supply or emergency

lights ballasts exit lights signs and bulbs shows a lack of thoroughness and

completeness in the firmrsquos analysis

For point 33(b)(iv) It is also shocking that Grant Thornton has reported that NO

contracts regarding the SRC Project were available for their review and if this is indeed

the case how could the firm provide any findings of fact with regards the erroneous and

misleading findings in this regard For this reason any statement or finding provided

regarding this project within their report is considered highly speculative and should be

excluded until the firm has reviewed the contracts that are still resident within NIB

Likewise the statement that there was no practical explanation of how CTrsquos on a large

electrical system upgrade could have been overlooked is a good question and should have

been answered readily by Grant Thorntonrsquos own Consultant Applied Consultants amp

Engineers (Dennis Nairn of ACE) This company ACE Dennis Nairn whom Grant

Thornton has reportedly contracted as an ldquoexpertrdquo in the field of electrical works was the

supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for the ldquolarge electrical systemrdquo at the Sandilands project

and it was this company not Kenuthrsquos Electric who despite being paid in full by

Kenuthrsquos Electric for the supply of the Square D system including CTs had shockingly

15

not included it in its order and supply and subsequently delayed the project by several

weeks Dennis Nairn of ACE was required to provide the required CTrsquos for this project

and instead only provided the CT Cabinet although the CTrsquos were in fact noted on the

design documents It baffles the mind that ACE is now acting as an agent of Grant

Thornton when they were the main supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for this project and

didnrsquot perform then Unbelievable

Findings at point 35

1 The direct payment to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work completed on the SRC Project was

authorized by the Contractor and Consultants attached to the formal payment request

The subsequent allegations being made by Shane Gibson in the media with regards the

Exuma Project are deliberately false and reckless There is absolutely no evidence to

confirm his allegations that I telephoned the contractor for the Exuma Mini Hospital and

demanded that he award the contract to Kenuthrsquos Electric Mr Gibson should review the

information in NIBrsquos files including the Board of Directors minutes and the

memorandums of the Director to determine the determination of the Board of Directors

and not assert opinions that can be easily verified to be inaccurate and baseless The facts

are

a NIB Board of Directors agreed to standardize all sub-contractors for the

Abaco and Exuma Hospital ie Electrical Plumbing and Air-condition

b The Architect MEP Engineers and Civil and Structural Engineers were also

standardized as the projects were a duplicate of each other and the Board

considered that for greater efficiency and because of ongoing experiences

with the Sandilands and Ministry of Tourism projects that they wanted a

problem free job and decided to standardize the entire team with the exception

of the General Contractor

c The electrical contractor nominated by the contractor did not have any

experience with any medical facilities or similar facilities did not have an

independent operationbusiness and based on Osbourne Moxeyrsquos analysis did

not appear to have the experience to complete this job ndash please also note NIB

ongoing experience with the Ministry of Tourism building that has had

several electrical fires and this slipshod electrical work was top of mind by

NIBrsquos Project Manager when he and the project consultants recommended

that we standardize all sub-contractors

d Osbourne Moxey and I together spoke with the General Contractor and

outlined the Boardrsquos requirements and advised the contractor that our job was

to advise what the Board had recommended and at the end of the day he was

free to make any decision that he wanted An interview with the General

Contractor could only confirm this statement and nothing else At this point I

16

will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media

by Minister Gibson particularly as these have not been included in the Grant

Thornton report notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have

It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntonrsquos several interviews with NIBrsquos Project Manager

and NIBrsquos Property Managers there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way

that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuthrsquos Electric exclusively In fact it is Osbourne

Moxeyrsquos professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several

occasions to NIBrsquos Board of Directors Minister Gibson and other NIB employees that it was

preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board

complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems but compromising of

our already delicate electrical infrastructure I am therefore confused that the works performed

by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my

behalf particularly I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or

mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

11

Allegation 3 ndash The Kenuthrsquos Electric Issue

Gregory Moss reported and Grant Thornton substantiated that the records of NIB confirm that

the sum of $209361982 was paid directly to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work performed on NIB

properties during the period 9th

December 2008 to 29th

August 2012 According to my

preliminary analysis this amount was $1062360 and according to the Grant Thornton Forensic

Report the Financial Controller also advised on page 80 at point 32 (b) that the amount of

$209361982 does not agree with NIBrsquos records Further Grant Thornton should deduct the

approved payments to Mr Knowles that NIB made on behalf of General Contractors that were

approved by the Project consultants and contractors and recorded as a project disbursement and

the amounts for direct NIB contracts andor the Ministry of Tourism project thereafter the

analysis would then confirm that the amount paid to Mr Knowles for the period 2008-2012

would be in the range of $500000 Moreover I am advised that the rates charged by this

company are within market rates and secondly are less than the rates that NIB is currently being

billed for electrical and air-conditioning services Current invoices reflect a fixed rate of $125

per hour and according to Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report Kenuthrsquos Electric rates were

$3303 to $10505 per hour Moreover further analysis by Grant Thornton would have

confirmed that these rates were not per employee as is the current case at NIB but were for a

minimum of 2 employees dispatched to NIB by the company

With regard to item 32(d) finding that the completion of the installation of parking lot lights at

the Poinciana Hill Building is the only contract found where Kenuthrsquos Electric was engaged by

NIB is inaccurate This work was approved by the Ministry of Health through a tender process

and Purchase Orders (a contract) were issued to Mr Knowles for several other works at NIB that

were recommended by NIB personnel other than me For example the IT Cabling to replace

the wireless financial network was approved by the IT Department the Electrical Upgrade to

NIBrsquos Head Office to facilitate the renovations to the property were approved by the Buildings

Division and any interview of these Department heads would confirm this Notwithstanding it

should be noted that the quantum of work at NIB Head Quarters would appear significant as the

premises were upgraded department by department over the past four (4) years to avoid any

interruption to key services and secondly the IT infrastructure had to be replaced as transactions

in the wireless environment were dropping and financial records were being compromised In

summary Grant Thornton who should be aware that a Purchase Order is a binding agreement

had sight of the Purchase Orders for the IT Networking the installation of the NIB HQ

Lightening Arrestor the details of the direct disbursements made to Kenuthrsquos Electric on behalf

of contractors and the details of all project works including the Ministry of Tourism project and

chose to not include these important facts in its Forensic Report analysis of payments made to

Kenuthrsquos Electric With regards to Grant Thorntonrsquos Findings on page 81 at point 33 and the

misrepresentations by Gregory Moss in his November 8 letter to Shane Gibson the following

clarifying points that Grant Thornton had reviewed and again chose to not clarify in its Forensic

12

Report should be noted

a $22225 - The 50 payment is due in part to the approved purchase order

POPON2M0900080 for the installation of Network cabling for the IT Department

which is supported by an in house requisition form In other words a binding contract

was evident

b $500676 - The purported finding that the new lightening protection system as installed

was completed without the involvement of a Consulting Engineer is inaccurate Kenuthrsquos

Electric would have been required to consult a Certified UL Consultant and or vendor in

order to provide the required lightening protection equipment (grounding copper cables

only from the pole to designated areas) Please also note that to date there are no local

person and or vendor that meets this criteria and the company consulted their USA

supplier for guidance and technical advice and guidance

c $1030534 - The variation in labor rates is a direct result to the level of

Technicianskilled company representative that completed the work Industry standard

rates are normally between $30 - $125 depending upon the level of the vendor

representative completing the tasks on behalf of the engaged company Further NIB is

currently paying rates of $125 per hour for electrical and air-condition works and is

shockingly now using the same electrical contractors the same air-condition contractors

and the same engineers for works on NIBrsquos properties and in most cases without any

tender documents at the time the work is awarded

d This finding is incorrect misleading and appears deliberately false as Grant Thornton

had unrestricted access to all of NIBrsquos records The cost of $880000 was related to the

installation of the lightning arrestor pole at the Head Quarters Building which included

the use of crane services to install the 45ft tapered pole that was designed by a USA

Vendor at the same standard of the Lightening Arrestor at the Miami International

Airport

e The reported finding that $1495875 was expended for specialty crane services is false

The amount of $1495875 was the balance payment due to Kenuthrsquos Electric for the

procurement and installation of the lightening arrestor rod This project was awarded to

Kenuthrsquos Electric following the submission of bids from at least three (3) vendors

including Kenuthrsquos Electric

f Again the statement the amount totaling $1111934 was the culmination of ONLY three

(3) invoices is false and inaccurate The payment of $1111934 included payments of six

(6) invoices to complete networking infrastructure in various buildings and departments

With regard to labour rates please refer to explanation in item (d)

g The hours worked noted was for the disconnection of data lines whips and feeders from

the existing cubicles and to relocate and reconnect the same in newly installed pre-

owned cubicle sections not having the service connections (data and power) properly

13

connected to the units but rather in boxes located in the shipping trailer Kenuthrsquos Electric

was then required to retrieve these items and accurately match the same to the cubicle

sections that were installed by another vendor Additionally in some cases new

additional power and or data lines were required to be installed within the office areas to

accommodate the cubicle sections The work was completed in the Central Benefits

Department and Inspectorate Department and Kenuthrsquos Electric was authorized to

proceed by the IT and Buildings department Again all works are related to the

installation of networking cabling infrastructure

With regards the findings that start of page 84 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report the

following should be noted

33 (b) (i) The labor rates within the invoices are consistent with industry standard labor

rates depending upon the level of the technicianworkman completing the relevant task

As noted above NIB is now paying without question labour rates of $125 for electrical

and air-conditioning work and in most cases these works are not being tendered at the

time of their award

For point 33 (b) (ii) It is highly unlikely that the Accounting Department of NIB would

honor payment for services without the submission of an invoice from a vendor This

statement is misleading and not consistent with the Accounting practices of NIB and

reflects on yet another attempt by Grant Thornton to suggest wrongdoing on the part of

NIB More due diligence is required by Grant Thornton and the statement is an attempt

to cast further aspersions on my character and reputation particularly as Grant Thornton

is fully or should be fully aware of the independent process employed by the Accounting

Department in approving any invoice for payment

For point 33(b) (iii) The statement that Graphite Engineering did not validate the

corrective works at the Ministry of Tourism project is wholly inaccurate and borders on

being reckless and again appears to be deliberately misleading In fact Grant Thornton

and Shane Gibson were purposely advised by NIBrsquos Buildings Department of the process

followed with regards the Ministry of Tourism corrective works performed by another

electrical contractor Kenuthrsquos Electric was required to remediate this work that was

previously approved and certified for payment by the Ministry of Works during the

original construction of the complex in 2005-2007

NIB contracted Graphite Engineering Ltd principal Sonia Brown to identify the

remedial work required in order that the final electrical inspection could be provided by

the Ministry of Works This is very similar to the current situation wherein NIB has

contracted Henry Storr Electric on the same contractual basis that Kenuthrsquos Electric was

contracted Graphite Engineering is a very reputable MEP Engineering firm and is

currently completing additional Engineering Services for two of NIBrsquos major projects

the mini hospitals in Abaco and Exuma Graphite Engineeringrsquos reports are available in

14

NIBrsquos file and will confirm their analysis of the remedial work required and certification

of all works completed according to the Bahamas Electrical Code prior to advancing to

NIB for payment

In addition to Graphite Engineeringrsquos certification NIB contracted Construction Cost

Engineering Services Ltd to certify the cost of every payment for work completed after

Graphite Engineering had confirmed that the work had been completed to their

specifications and satisfaction All invoices were certified by Quantity Surveyors

Construction Cost Engineering prior to any recommendation for payment by NIBrsquos

building department not by me

Grant Thornton had sight of this information all certifications by Graphite and

Construction Cost and elected to not include it in its summary report This is very

curious and shocking

Further under Graphitersquo supervision and direction the estimation of 3 ndash 4 weeks to

complete the remedial works was consistent with their initial scope as noted within their

report which also indicated that their recommendations were solely based upon what

should have been seen and not any defects that were hidden Moreover The Bahamas

Building Code requires that all exit points be adequately designated by illuminated exit

signs in corridors of commercial buildings At the time while Kenuthrsquos Electric was

completing the electrical remedial works it was advised to them by the consultants that

there were no exit signs installed and this is a key requirement for the final inspection

certificate from the Ministry of Works Additionally the cost of electric illuminated exit

signs ranges from $2500 - $3500 per sign excluding installation Further the ldquofindingsrdquo

by Grant Thornton that the Kenuthrsquos Electric billed $30000 for the supply or emergency

lights ballasts exit lights signs and bulbs shows a lack of thoroughness and

completeness in the firmrsquos analysis

For point 33(b)(iv) It is also shocking that Grant Thornton has reported that NO

contracts regarding the SRC Project were available for their review and if this is indeed

the case how could the firm provide any findings of fact with regards the erroneous and

misleading findings in this regard For this reason any statement or finding provided

regarding this project within their report is considered highly speculative and should be

excluded until the firm has reviewed the contracts that are still resident within NIB

Likewise the statement that there was no practical explanation of how CTrsquos on a large

electrical system upgrade could have been overlooked is a good question and should have

been answered readily by Grant Thorntonrsquos own Consultant Applied Consultants amp

Engineers (Dennis Nairn of ACE) This company ACE Dennis Nairn whom Grant

Thornton has reportedly contracted as an ldquoexpertrdquo in the field of electrical works was the

supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for the ldquolarge electrical systemrdquo at the Sandilands project

and it was this company not Kenuthrsquos Electric who despite being paid in full by

Kenuthrsquos Electric for the supply of the Square D system including CTs had shockingly

15

not included it in its order and supply and subsequently delayed the project by several

weeks Dennis Nairn of ACE was required to provide the required CTrsquos for this project

and instead only provided the CT Cabinet although the CTrsquos were in fact noted on the

design documents It baffles the mind that ACE is now acting as an agent of Grant

Thornton when they were the main supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for this project and

didnrsquot perform then Unbelievable

Findings at point 35

1 The direct payment to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work completed on the SRC Project was

authorized by the Contractor and Consultants attached to the formal payment request

The subsequent allegations being made by Shane Gibson in the media with regards the

Exuma Project are deliberately false and reckless There is absolutely no evidence to

confirm his allegations that I telephoned the contractor for the Exuma Mini Hospital and

demanded that he award the contract to Kenuthrsquos Electric Mr Gibson should review the

information in NIBrsquos files including the Board of Directors minutes and the

memorandums of the Director to determine the determination of the Board of Directors

and not assert opinions that can be easily verified to be inaccurate and baseless The facts

are

a NIB Board of Directors agreed to standardize all sub-contractors for the

Abaco and Exuma Hospital ie Electrical Plumbing and Air-condition

b The Architect MEP Engineers and Civil and Structural Engineers were also

standardized as the projects were a duplicate of each other and the Board

considered that for greater efficiency and because of ongoing experiences

with the Sandilands and Ministry of Tourism projects that they wanted a

problem free job and decided to standardize the entire team with the exception

of the General Contractor

c The electrical contractor nominated by the contractor did not have any

experience with any medical facilities or similar facilities did not have an

independent operationbusiness and based on Osbourne Moxeyrsquos analysis did

not appear to have the experience to complete this job ndash please also note NIB

ongoing experience with the Ministry of Tourism building that has had

several electrical fires and this slipshod electrical work was top of mind by

NIBrsquos Project Manager when he and the project consultants recommended

that we standardize all sub-contractors

d Osbourne Moxey and I together spoke with the General Contractor and

outlined the Boardrsquos requirements and advised the contractor that our job was

to advise what the Board had recommended and at the end of the day he was

free to make any decision that he wanted An interview with the General

Contractor could only confirm this statement and nothing else At this point I

16

will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media

by Minister Gibson particularly as these have not been included in the Grant

Thornton report notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have

It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntonrsquos several interviews with NIBrsquos Project Manager

and NIBrsquos Property Managers there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way

that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuthrsquos Electric exclusively In fact it is Osbourne

Moxeyrsquos professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several

occasions to NIBrsquos Board of Directors Minister Gibson and other NIB employees that it was

preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board

complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems but compromising of

our already delicate electrical infrastructure I am therefore confused that the works performed

by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my

behalf particularly I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or

mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

12

Report should be noted

a $22225 - The 50 payment is due in part to the approved purchase order

POPON2M0900080 for the installation of Network cabling for the IT Department

which is supported by an in house requisition form In other words a binding contract

was evident

b $500676 - The purported finding that the new lightening protection system as installed

was completed without the involvement of a Consulting Engineer is inaccurate Kenuthrsquos

Electric would have been required to consult a Certified UL Consultant and or vendor in

order to provide the required lightening protection equipment (grounding copper cables

only from the pole to designated areas) Please also note that to date there are no local

person and or vendor that meets this criteria and the company consulted their USA

supplier for guidance and technical advice and guidance

c $1030534 - The variation in labor rates is a direct result to the level of

Technicianskilled company representative that completed the work Industry standard

rates are normally between $30 - $125 depending upon the level of the vendor

representative completing the tasks on behalf of the engaged company Further NIB is

currently paying rates of $125 per hour for electrical and air-condition works and is

shockingly now using the same electrical contractors the same air-condition contractors

and the same engineers for works on NIBrsquos properties and in most cases without any

tender documents at the time the work is awarded

d This finding is incorrect misleading and appears deliberately false as Grant Thornton

had unrestricted access to all of NIBrsquos records The cost of $880000 was related to the

installation of the lightning arrestor pole at the Head Quarters Building which included

the use of crane services to install the 45ft tapered pole that was designed by a USA

Vendor at the same standard of the Lightening Arrestor at the Miami International

Airport

e The reported finding that $1495875 was expended for specialty crane services is false

The amount of $1495875 was the balance payment due to Kenuthrsquos Electric for the

procurement and installation of the lightening arrestor rod This project was awarded to

Kenuthrsquos Electric following the submission of bids from at least three (3) vendors

including Kenuthrsquos Electric

f Again the statement the amount totaling $1111934 was the culmination of ONLY three

(3) invoices is false and inaccurate The payment of $1111934 included payments of six

(6) invoices to complete networking infrastructure in various buildings and departments

With regard to labour rates please refer to explanation in item (d)

g The hours worked noted was for the disconnection of data lines whips and feeders from

the existing cubicles and to relocate and reconnect the same in newly installed pre-

owned cubicle sections not having the service connections (data and power) properly

13

connected to the units but rather in boxes located in the shipping trailer Kenuthrsquos Electric

was then required to retrieve these items and accurately match the same to the cubicle

sections that were installed by another vendor Additionally in some cases new

additional power and or data lines were required to be installed within the office areas to

accommodate the cubicle sections The work was completed in the Central Benefits

Department and Inspectorate Department and Kenuthrsquos Electric was authorized to

proceed by the IT and Buildings department Again all works are related to the

installation of networking cabling infrastructure

With regards the findings that start of page 84 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report the

following should be noted

33 (b) (i) The labor rates within the invoices are consistent with industry standard labor

rates depending upon the level of the technicianworkman completing the relevant task

As noted above NIB is now paying without question labour rates of $125 for electrical

and air-conditioning work and in most cases these works are not being tendered at the

time of their award

For point 33 (b) (ii) It is highly unlikely that the Accounting Department of NIB would

honor payment for services without the submission of an invoice from a vendor This

statement is misleading and not consistent with the Accounting practices of NIB and

reflects on yet another attempt by Grant Thornton to suggest wrongdoing on the part of

NIB More due diligence is required by Grant Thornton and the statement is an attempt

to cast further aspersions on my character and reputation particularly as Grant Thornton

is fully or should be fully aware of the independent process employed by the Accounting

Department in approving any invoice for payment

For point 33(b) (iii) The statement that Graphite Engineering did not validate the

corrective works at the Ministry of Tourism project is wholly inaccurate and borders on

being reckless and again appears to be deliberately misleading In fact Grant Thornton

and Shane Gibson were purposely advised by NIBrsquos Buildings Department of the process

followed with regards the Ministry of Tourism corrective works performed by another

electrical contractor Kenuthrsquos Electric was required to remediate this work that was

previously approved and certified for payment by the Ministry of Works during the

original construction of the complex in 2005-2007

NIB contracted Graphite Engineering Ltd principal Sonia Brown to identify the

remedial work required in order that the final electrical inspection could be provided by

the Ministry of Works This is very similar to the current situation wherein NIB has

contracted Henry Storr Electric on the same contractual basis that Kenuthrsquos Electric was

contracted Graphite Engineering is a very reputable MEP Engineering firm and is

currently completing additional Engineering Services for two of NIBrsquos major projects

the mini hospitals in Abaco and Exuma Graphite Engineeringrsquos reports are available in

14

NIBrsquos file and will confirm their analysis of the remedial work required and certification

of all works completed according to the Bahamas Electrical Code prior to advancing to

NIB for payment

In addition to Graphite Engineeringrsquos certification NIB contracted Construction Cost

Engineering Services Ltd to certify the cost of every payment for work completed after

Graphite Engineering had confirmed that the work had been completed to their

specifications and satisfaction All invoices were certified by Quantity Surveyors

Construction Cost Engineering prior to any recommendation for payment by NIBrsquos

building department not by me

Grant Thornton had sight of this information all certifications by Graphite and

Construction Cost and elected to not include it in its summary report This is very

curious and shocking

Further under Graphitersquo supervision and direction the estimation of 3 ndash 4 weeks to

complete the remedial works was consistent with their initial scope as noted within their

report which also indicated that their recommendations were solely based upon what

should have been seen and not any defects that were hidden Moreover The Bahamas

Building Code requires that all exit points be adequately designated by illuminated exit

signs in corridors of commercial buildings At the time while Kenuthrsquos Electric was

completing the electrical remedial works it was advised to them by the consultants that

there were no exit signs installed and this is a key requirement for the final inspection

certificate from the Ministry of Works Additionally the cost of electric illuminated exit

signs ranges from $2500 - $3500 per sign excluding installation Further the ldquofindingsrdquo

by Grant Thornton that the Kenuthrsquos Electric billed $30000 for the supply or emergency

lights ballasts exit lights signs and bulbs shows a lack of thoroughness and

completeness in the firmrsquos analysis

For point 33(b)(iv) It is also shocking that Grant Thornton has reported that NO

contracts regarding the SRC Project were available for their review and if this is indeed

the case how could the firm provide any findings of fact with regards the erroneous and

misleading findings in this regard For this reason any statement or finding provided

regarding this project within their report is considered highly speculative and should be

excluded until the firm has reviewed the contracts that are still resident within NIB

Likewise the statement that there was no practical explanation of how CTrsquos on a large

electrical system upgrade could have been overlooked is a good question and should have

been answered readily by Grant Thorntonrsquos own Consultant Applied Consultants amp

Engineers (Dennis Nairn of ACE) This company ACE Dennis Nairn whom Grant

Thornton has reportedly contracted as an ldquoexpertrdquo in the field of electrical works was the

supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for the ldquolarge electrical systemrdquo at the Sandilands project

and it was this company not Kenuthrsquos Electric who despite being paid in full by

Kenuthrsquos Electric for the supply of the Square D system including CTs had shockingly

15

not included it in its order and supply and subsequently delayed the project by several

weeks Dennis Nairn of ACE was required to provide the required CTrsquos for this project

and instead only provided the CT Cabinet although the CTrsquos were in fact noted on the

design documents It baffles the mind that ACE is now acting as an agent of Grant

Thornton when they were the main supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for this project and

didnrsquot perform then Unbelievable

Findings at point 35

1 The direct payment to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work completed on the SRC Project was

authorized by the Contractor and Consultants attached to the formal payment request

The subsequent allegations being made by Shane Gibson in the media with regards the

Exuma Project are deliberately false and reckless There is absolutely no evidence to

confirm his allegations that I telephoned the contractor for the Exuma Mini Hospital and

demanded that he award the contract to Kenuthrsquos Electric Mr Gibson should review the

information in NIBrsquos files including the Board of Directors minutes and the

memorandums of the Director to determine the determination of the Board of Directors

and not assert opinions that can be easily verified to be inaccurate and baseless The facts

are

a NIB Board of Directors agreed to standardize all sub-contractors for the

Abaco and Exuma Hospital ie Electrical Plumbing and Air-condition

b The Architect MEP Engineers and Civil and Structural Engineers were also

standardized as the projects were a duplicate of each other and the Board

considered that for greater efficiency and because of ongoing experiences

with the Sandilands and Ministry of Tourism projects that they wanted a

problem free job and decided to standardize the entire team with the exception

of the General Contractor

c The electrical contractor nominated by the contractor did not have any

experience with any medical facilities or similar facilities did not have an

independent operationbusiness and based on Osbourne Moxeyrsquos analysis did

not appear to have the experience to complete this job ndash please also note NIB

ongoing experience with the Ministry of Tourism building that has had

several electrical fires and this slipshod electrical work was top of mind by

NIBrsquos Project Manager when he and the project consultants recommended

that we standardize all sub-contractors

d Osbourne Moxey and I together spoke with the General Contractor and

outlined the Boardrsquos requirements and advised the contractor that our job was

to advise what the Board had recommended and at the end of the day he was

free to make any decision that he wanted An interview with the General

Contractor could only confirm this statement and nothing else At this point I

16

will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media

by Minister Gibson particularly as these have not been included in the Grant

Thornton report notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have

It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntonrsquos several interviews with NIBrsquos Project Manager

and NIBrsquos Property Managers there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way

that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuthrsquos Electric exclusively In fact it is Osbourne

Moxeyrsquos professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several

occasions to NIBrsquos Board of Directors Minister Gibson and other NIB employees that it was

preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board

complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems but compromising of

our already delicate electrical infrastructure I am therefore confused that the works performed

by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my

behalf particularly I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or

mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

13

connected to the units but rather in boxes located in the shipping trailer Kenuthrsquos Electric

was then required to retrieve these items and accurately match the same to the cubicle

sections that were installed by another vendor Additionally in some cases new

additional power and or data lines were required to be installed within the office areas to

accommodate the cubicle sections The work was completed in the Central Benefits

Department and Inspectorate Department and Kenuthrsquos Electric was authorized to

proceed by the IT and Buildings department Again all works are related to the

installation of networking cabling infrastructure

With regards the findings that start of page 84 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report the

following should be noted

33 (b) (i) The labor rates within the invoices are consistent with industry standard labor

rates depending upon the level of the technicianworkman completing the relevant task

As noted above NIB is now paying without question labour rates of $125 for electrical

and air-conditioning work and in most cases these works are not being tendered at the

time of their award

For point 33 (b) (ii) It is highly unlikely that the Accounting Department of NIB would

honor payment for services without the submission of an invoice from a vendor This

statement is misleading and not consistent with the Accounting practices of NIB and

reflects on yet another attempt by Grant Thornton to suggest wrongdoing on the part of

NIB More due diligence is required by Grant Thornton and the statement is an attempt

to cast further aspersions on my character and reputation particularly as Grant Thornton

is fully or should be fully aware of the independent process employed by the Accounting

Department in approving any invoice for payment

For point 33(b) (iii) The statement that Graphite Engineering did not validate the

corrective works at the Ministry of Tourism project is wholly inaccurate and borders on

being reckless and again appears to be deliberately misleading In fact Grant Thornton

and Shane Gibson were purposely advised by NIBrsquos Buildings Department of the process

followed with regards the Ministry of Tourism corrective works performed by another

electrical contractor Kenuthrsquos Electric was required to remediate this work that was

previously approved and certified for payment by the Ministry of Works during the

original construction of the complex in 2005-2007

NIB contracted Graphite Engineering Ltd principal Sonia Brown to identify the

remedial work required in order that the final electrical inspection could be provided by

the Ministry of Works This is very similar to the current situation wherein NIB has

contracted Henry Storr Electric on the same contractual basis that Kenuthrsquos Electric was

contracted Graphite Engineering is a very reputable MEP Engineering firm and is

currently completing additional Engineering Services for two of NIBrsquos major projects

the mini hospitals in Abaco and Exuma Graphite Engineeringrsquos reports are available in

14

NIBrsquos file and will confirm their analysis of the remedial work required and certification

of all works completed according to the Bahamas Electrical Code prior to advancing to

NIB for payment

In addition to Graphite Engineeringrsquos certification NIB contracted Construction Cost

Engineering Services Ltd to certify the cost of every payment for work completed after

Graphite Engineering had confirmed that the work had been completed to their

specifications and satisfaction All invoices were certified by Quantity Surveyors

Construction Cost Engineering prior to any recommendation for payment by NIBrsquos

building department not by me

Grant Thornton had sight of this information all certifications by Graphite and

Construction Cost and elected to not include it in its summary report This is very

curious and shocking

Further under Graphitersquo supervision and direction the estimation of 3 ndash 4 weeks to

complete the remedial works was consistent with their initial scope as noted within their

report which also indicated that their recommendations were solely based upon what

should have been seen and not any defects that were hidden Moreover The Bahamas

Building Code requires that all exit points be adequately designated by illuminated exit

signs in corridors of commercial buildings At the time while Kenuthrsquos Electric was

completing the electrical remedial works it was advised to them by the consultants that

there were no exit signs installed and this is a key requirement for the final inspection

certificate from the Ministry of Works Additionally the cost of electric illuminated exit

signs ranges from $2500 - $3500 per sign excluding installation Further the ldquofindingsrdquo

by Grant Thornton that the Kenuthrsquos Electric billed $30000 for the supply or emergency

lights ballasts exit lights signs and bulbs shows a lack of thoroughness and

completeness in the firmrsquos analysis

For point 33(b)(iv) It is also shocking that Grant Thornton has reported that NO

contracts regarding the SRC Project were available for their review and if this is indeed

the case how could the firm provide any findings of fact with regards the erroneous and

misleading findings in this regard For this reason any statement or finding provided

regarding this project within their report is considered highly speculative and should be

excluded until the firm has reviewed the contracts that are still resident within NIB

Likewise the statement that there was no practical explanation of how CTrsquos on a large

electrical system upgrade could have been overlooked is a good question and should have

been answered readily by Grant Thorntonrsquos own Consultant Applied Consultants amp

Engineers (Dennis Nairn of ACE) This company ACE Dennis Nairn whom Grant

Thornton has reportedly contracted as an ldquoexpertrdquo in the field of electrical works was the

supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for the ldquolarge electrical systemrdquo at the Sandilands project

and it was this company not Kenuthrsquos Electric who despite being paid in full by

Kenuthrsquos Electric for the supply of the Square D system including CTs had shockingly

15

not included it in its order and supply and subsequently delayed the project by several

weeks Dennis Nairn of ACE was required to provide the required CTrsquos for this project

and instead only provided the CT Cabinet although the CTrsquos were in fact noted on the

design documents It baffles the mind that ACE is now acting as an agent of Grant

Thornton when they were the main supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for this project and

didnrsquot perform then Unbelievable

Findings at point 35

1 The direct payment to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work completed on the SRC Project was

authorized by the Contractor and Consultants attached to the formal payment request

The subsequent allegations being made by Shane Gibson in the media with regards the

Exuma Project are deliberately false and reckless There is absolutely no evidence to

confirm his allegations that I telephoned the contractor for the Exuma Mini Hospital and

demanded that he award the contract to Kenuthrsquos Electric Mr Gibson should review the

information in NIBrsquos files including the Board of Directors minutes and the

memorandums of the Director to determine the determination of the Board of Directors

and not assert opinions that can be easily verified to be inaccurate and baseless The facts

are

a NIB Board of Directors agreed to standardize all sub-contractors for the

Abaco and Exuma Hospital ie Electrical Plumbing and Air-condition

b The Architect MEP Engineers and Civil and Structural Engineers were also

standardized as the projects were a duplicate of each other and the Board

considered that for greater efficiency and because of ongoing experiences

with the Sandilands and Ministry of Tourism projects that they wanted a

problem free job and decided to standardize the entire team with the exception

of the General Contractor

c The electrical contractor nominated by the contractor did not have any

experience with any medical facilities or similar facilities did not have an

independent operationbusiness and based on Osbourne Moxeyrsquos analysis did

not appear to have the experience to complete this job ndash please also note NIB

ongoing experience with the Ministry of Tourism building that has had

several electrical fires and this slipshod electrical work was top of mind by

NIBrsquos Project Manager when he and the project consultants recommended

that we standardize all sub-contractors

d Osbourne Moxey and I together spoke with the General Contractor and

outlined the Boardrsquos requirements and advised the contractor that our job was

to advise what the Board had recommended and at the end of the day he was

free to make any decision that he wanted An interview with the General

Contractor could only confirm this statement and nothing else At this point I

16

will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media

by Minister Gibson particularly as these have not been included in the Grant

Thornton report notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have

It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntonrsquos several interviews with NIBrsquos Project Manager

and NIBrsquos Property Managers there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way

that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuthrsquos Electric exclusively In fact it is Osbourne

Moxeyrsquos professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several

occasions to NIBrsquos Board of Directors Minister Gibson and other NIB employees that it was

preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board

complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems but compromising of

our already delicate electrical infrastructure I am therefore confused that the works performed

by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my

behalf particularly I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or

mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

14

NIBrsquos file and will confirm their analysis of the remedial work required and certification

of all works completed according to the Bahamas Electrical Code prior to advancing to

NIB for payment

In addition to Graphite Engineeringrsquos certification NIB contracted Construction Cost

Engineering Services Ltd to certify the cost of every payment for work completed after

Graphite Engineering had confirmed that the work had been completed to their

specifications and satisfaction All invoices were certified by Quantity Surveyors

Construction Cost Engineering prior to any recommendation for payment by NIBrsquos

building department not by me

Grant Thornton had sight of this information all certifications by Graphite and

Construction Cost and elected to not include it in its summary report This is very

curious and shocking

Further under Graphitersquo supervision and direction the estimation of 3 ndash 4 weeks to

complete the remedial works was consistent with their initial scope as noted within their

report which also indicated that their recommendations were solely based upon what

should have been seen and not any defects that were hidden Moreover The Bahamas

Building Code requires that all exit points be adequately designated by illuminated exit

signs in corridors of commercial buildings At the time while Kenuthrsquos Electric was

completing the electrical remedial works it was advised to them by the consultants that

there were no exit signs installed and this is a key requirement for the final inspection

certificate from the Ministry of Works Additionally the cost of electric illuminated exit

signs ranges from $2500 - $3500 per sign excluding installation Further the ldquofindingsrdquo

by Grant Thornton that the Kenuthrsquos Electric billed $30000 for the supply or emergency

lights ballasts exit lights signs and bulbs shows a lack of thoroughness and

completeness in the firmrsquos analysis

For point 33(b)(iv) It is also shocking that Grant Thornton has reported that NO

contracts regarding the SRC Project were available for their review and if this is indeed

the case how could the firm provide any findings of fact with regards the erroneous and

misleading findings in this regard For this reason any statement or finding provided

regarding this project within their report is considered highly speculative and should be

excluded until the firm has reviewed the contracts that are still resident within NIB

Likewise the statement that there was no practical explanation of how CTrsquos on a large

electrical system upgrade could have been overlooked is a good question and should have

been answered readily by Grant Thorntonrsquos own Consultant Applied Consultants amp

Engineers (Dennis Nairn of ACE) This company ACE Dennis Nairn whom Grant

Thornton has reportedly contracted as an ldquoexpertrdquo in the field of electrical works was the

supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for the ldquolarge electrical systemrdquo at the Sandilands project

and it was this company not Kenuthrsquos Electric who despite being paid in full by

Kenuthrsquos Electric for the supply of the Square D system including CTs had shockingly

15

not included it in its order and supply and subsequently delayed the project by several

weeks Dennis Nairn of ACE was required to provide the required CTrsquos for this project

and instead only provided the CT Cabinet although the CTrsquos were in fact noted on the

design documents It baffles the mind that ACE is now acting as an agent of Grant

Thornton when they were the main supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for this project and

didnrsquot perform then Unbelievable

Findings at point 35

1 The direct payment to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work completed on the SRC Project was

authorized by the Contractor and Consultants attached to the formal payment request

The subsequent allegations being made by Shane Gibson in the media with regards the

Exuma Project are deliberately false and reckless There is absolutely no evidence to

confirm his allegations that I telephoned the contractor for the Exuma Mini Hospital and

demanded that he award the contract to Kenuthrsquos Electric Mr Gibson should review the

information in NIBrsquos files including the Board of Directors minutes and the

memorandums of the Director to determine the determination of the Board of Directors

and not assert opinions that can be easily verified to be inaccurate and baseless The facts

are

a NIB Board of Directors agreed to standardize all sub-contractors for the

Abaco and Exuma Hospital ie Electrical Plumbing and Air-condition

b The Architect MEP Engineers and Civil and Structural Engineers were also

standardized as the projects were a duplicate of each other and the Board

considered that for greater efficiency and because of ongoing experiences

with the Sandilands and Ministry of Tourism projects that they wanted a

problem free job and decided to standardize the entire team with the exception

of the General Contractor

c The electrical contractor nominated by the contractor did not have any

experience with any medical facilities or similar facilities did not have an

independent operationbusiness and based on Osbourne Moxeyrsquos analysis did

not appear to have the experience to complete this job ndash please also note NIB

ongoing experience with the Ministry of Tourism building that has had

several electrical fires and this slipshod electrical work was top of mind by

NIBrsquos Project Manager when he and the project consultants recommended

that we standardize all sub-contractors

d Osbourne Moxey and I together spoke with the General Contractor and

outlined the Boardrsquos requirements and advised the contractor that our job was

to advise what the Board had recommended and at the end of the day he was

free to make any decision that he wanted An interview with the General

Contractor could only confirm this statement and nothing else At this point I

16

will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media

by Minister Gibson particularly as these have not been included in the Grant

Thornton report notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have

It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntonrsquos several interviews with NIBrsquos Project Manager

and NIBrsquos Property Managers there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way

that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuthrsquos Electric exclusively In fact it is Osbourne

Moxeyrsquos professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several

occasions to NIBrsquos Board of Directors Minister Gibson and other NIB employees that it was

preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board

complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems but compromising of

our already delicate electrical infrastructure I am therefore confused that the works performed

by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my

behalf particularly I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or

mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

15

not included it in its order and supply and subsequently delayed the project by several

weeks Dennis Nairn of ACE was required to provide the required CTrsquos for this project

and instead only provided the CT Cabinet although the CTrsquos were in fact noted on the

design documents It baffles the mind that ACE is now acting as an agent of Grant

Thornton when they were the main supplier of Kenuthrsquos Electric for this project and

didnrsquot perform then Unbelievable

Findings at point 35

1 The direct payment to Kenuthrsquos Electric for work completed on the SRC Project was

authorized by the Contractor and Consultants attached to the formal payment request

The subsequent allegations being made by Shane Gibson in the media with regards the

Exuma Project are deliberately false and reckless There is absolutely no evidence to

confirm his allegations that I telephoned the contractor for the Exuma Mini Hospital and

demanded that he award the contract to Kenuthrsquos Electric Mr Gibson should review the

information in NIBrsquos files including the Board of Directors minutes and the

memorandums of the Director to determine the determination of the Board of Directors

and not assert opinions that can be easily verified to be inaccurate and baseless The facts

are

a NIB Board of Directors agreed to standardize all sub-contractors for the

Abaco and Exuma Hospital ie Electrical Plumbing and Air-condition

b The Architect MEP Engineers and Civil and Structural Engineers were also

standardized as the projects were a duplicate of each other and the Board

considered that for greater efficiency and because of ongoing experiences

with the Sandilands and Ministry of Tourism projects that they wanted a

problem free job and decided to standardize the entire team with the exception

of the General Contractor

c The electrical contractor nominated by the contractor did not have any

experience with any medical facilities or similar facilities did not have an

independent operationbusiness and based on Osbourne Moxeyrsquos analysis did

not appear to have the experience to complete this job ndash please also note NIB

ongoing experience with the Ministry of Tourism building that has had

several electrical fires and this slipshod electrical work was top of mind by

NIBrsquos Project Manager when he and the project consultants recommended

that we standardize all sub-contractors

d Osbourne Moxey and I together spoke with the General Contractor and

outlined the Boardrsquos requirements and advised the contractor that our job was

to advise what the Board had recommended and at the end of the day he was

free to make any decision that he wanted An interview with the General

Contractor could only confirm this statement and nothing else At this point I

16

will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media

by Minister Gibson particularly as these have not been included in the Grant

Thornton report notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have

It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntonrsquos several interviews with NIBrsquos Project Manager

and NIBrsquos Property Managers there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way

that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuthrsquos Electric exclusively In fact it is Osbourne

Moxeyrsquos professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several

occasions to NIBrsquos Board of Directors Minister Gibson and other NIB employees that it was

preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board

complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems but compromising of

our already delicate electrical infrastructure I am therefore confused that the works performed

by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my

behalf particularly I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or

mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

16

will therefore not comment further to the comments being made in the media

by Minister Gibson particularly as these have not been included in the Grant

Thornton report notwithstanding the evidence he claims to have

It is also curious that despite Grant Thorntonrsquos several interviews with NIBrsquos Project Manager

and NIBrsquos Property Managers there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support in any way

that I directed anyone to use the services of Kenuthrsquos Electric exclusively In fact it is Osbourne

Moxeyrsquos professional recommendation and opinion that he has also expressed on several

occasions to NIBrsquos Board of Directors Minister Gibson and other NIB employees that it was

preferable to have only one electrical expert working within the National Insurance Board

complex as any additional could lead to not only management problems but compromising of

our already delicate electrical infrastructure I am therefore confused that the works performed

by Kenuth Electric are inferred by Grant Thornton to be because of any direct actions on my

behalf particularly I have no role to play in the initial management of any electrical or

mechanical emergency or project within the National Insurance Board

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

17

Allegation 4 ndash The Vitech Contract Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of facts that present no issues and my Affidavit filed in the

Supreme Court raised several concerns about the Conduct of Gregory Moss that do not appear to

have been addressed in the report provided to me

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

18

Allegation 5 ndash The Suspension of Sean Moss

Before responding to this allegation the entire interview of Erin Moss (Sean Mossrsquo wife) should

be reviewed as the salient points were excluded from the Grant Thornton Forensic Report A

copy of her interview transcribed by Grant Thornton is as follows

Minutes of the meeting with Erin Michelle Smith Moss

By John Swain amp Kendrick Christie

ESM He filed the divorce petition in 2010 and I wasnrsquot made aware of the petition and the

contents until February of 2012 He had already placed the petition in the court from 2010

When he left the house and tried to come back I refused to let him come back The process was

very difficult I never imagined that he would do this Irsquom not here to tear down my husband I

donrsquot like what he did and he knows itrsquos a lie I just want the truth to be out Mr Cargill is my

friend I donrsquot want to say anything to bring him down because that would mean we did

something wrong I just want the truth to be said

JS When did you first meet Mr Cargill

ESM Met Mr Cargill through the BSF I worked under Vincent Wallace Whitfield (president at

the time) as an official (14 years ago) Mr Cargill ran for presidency and won I became the

president of Seabees I would see him at meets and he was very good to my daughter (He wrote a

letter for her to get her scholarship) He would also order swimsuits through his US address for

the swim club

KC Did you know about the letter Our main concern is to establish your position on the

allegations placed towards him

ESM There was no affair He was and always will be my friend

KC How long were you married

ESM Dated for 2 years before getting married Married for 14 years

KC What was your husbandrsquos involvement in the swim meets

ESM None existent My daughter went to 6 Cariftarsquos and he only came to onehellip

Background Story Her husband asked her to call Mr Cargill to help find him a job Mr

Cargill helped and got him a job at NIB as a consultant She couldnrsquot believe her husband

would do thathellipHe cheated and lived with a woman (May of 2010) [She had no clue] One

night he didnrsquot come home and she tried calling his cell but got no answer She also tried

calling the police and the hospital (She was very angry) He came back home on Saturday and

did not explain where he was so she put his clothes on the porch Because of this he called the

police and they told her that she could not do that because they both owned the house She put

it back in the house and then he left againhellip She didnrsquot know of the affair until Mr Pyform

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

19

(the girlfriendrsquos husband) called her and told her what was going on She didnrsquot say anything

right away to her husbandhellipwhen the husband came home (a week later) the husband smiled

when she brought the conversation up (This happened from the previous year rsquo09) She went

on a trip to Washington and when she came back she noticed there were a lot of phone calls

(house and cell) but she didnrsquot put it together She thought the phone calls were from church

members or Burns House (because he would usually pick up different jobs) [Jan] Calls

became more frequent He slept in the childrenrsquos room because of his leg (the bed in their

room was too high) One of the children came to her asking why daddy was always on the

phonehellipshe thought it was a friends but didnrsquot put it together at the time that he was being

unfaithful When the husband moved out he stopped paying the mortgage and moved the

money from their Scotia account to First Caribbean She confronted him because everything

stopped He didnrsquot help paying with the children and didnrsquot help he pay the bills

KC Do you know where he stayed

ESM I think in our daughterrsquos house which he was entrusted to hold until she became of age

One day when he took the kids she asked him to keep the kids for one more day and this is

when she really found out about the girlfriend because he had her watch the kids while he

was at work She (Thursday evening) called him at NIB and asked where the children were

but he did not answer her calls She then called Mr Cargill so that he could ask the husband

to come downstairs because she could get through to him Mr Cargill asked him to go

downstairs He came down and they got into a big argument She thinks Mr Cargill called his

boss because they were on NIB property Mrs King called her to come in to the board room to

explain the situation He said the kids were with his aunt Mrs King didnrsquot want to get into it

Mr Wells was there Mr Cargill said that NIB would assist with any matters dealing with the

marriage (talking to a doctor Barret etc) She went to the aunt to pick up the kids and the aunt

said the kids were not there So she called her husband to find out where the children were but

he did not answer She called Mr Cargill again to try to help her reach him Mr Cargill

explains the situation to the husband who then says to give him a minutehelliphe checked and

came back and said that the children were there now ESM says that the girlfriend was

dropping the kids off but couldnrsquot find the house This was why they were not there

KC [Reads from the letter] Asks her if report taken on this incident was an accurate portrayal

of what actually happened

ESM Thatrsquos not true because this was after 5pm almost 6hellipHe was driving someone elsersquos car

who he said was his bossrsquohellipHe then called saying that his car got burned down She knew that

he was driving THEIR car that they had together but knew nothing of the car he was referring

to

KC Says two vehicles were burnedhellipis that true

ESM No it was one vehicle The police can tell you the time and when the cars were burned

down

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

20

JS Did you go to the counseling

ESM I went to one then he went to onehellipbut we didnrsquot go together

JS Did Mr Cargill ever call you at night

ESM Never I give you permission to check my phone records He only called for issues

pertaining to the swim club

KC When did Mr Cargillrsquos name come in

ESM Not until last yearhellipnever before

JS Why did the article say that you told your husband that Mr Cargill was better than him in

computers

ESM I never said that I donrsquot know where that came from

KC Did your husband ever come back home

The husband couldnrsquot travel during the December month but he called to speak with the kids

on Christmas and one of the children questioned him on being away because a long distance

number showed up on the caller ID The husband was also missing from work for a few days

and didnrsquot call into NIB She got a call from her cousin who worked at JetBlue who told her

that she saw the husband leave to go to NY with another woman Cargill called and asked

ESM where her husband was because he didnrsquot come into work Eventually they found out

that the husband was stuck in a snow storm in New York (Dec 2010) In Jan 2011 the husband

came to her and asked if there was any hope for the marriage (at the movies) she said she was

bitter but by her reaction she said no

KC We sympathize with you Please take it back to the divorce petition filed in 2010

ESM I had no idea until 2012 Nothing was sent to me Ask Sharon Wilson

KC How could you file a petition and the other person not know Was it shut down why didnrsquot

you know

ESM I had to take him to court for not contributing (Maintenance) and then Claire Hepburn

said that there was a petition already and asked if we wanted to combine it She didnrsquot ask about

it

From the time they left the court the husband did nothing the judge ordered He registered the

kids into public schools without letting her know She found out two days before school

opened Her daughter stayed in KA because she paid that school fee On the file at one of the

kidsrsquo school she found a copy of the husbandrsquos lease agreement He apparently moved the

woman out of the daughterrsquos house and into an apartment in Leeward Estates She thinks the

womanrsquos husband was going to kill her husband The man called and told her that he was

going to kill her husband He was able to tell her where she lived and he also had pictures and

tape recording of them on the phone

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

21

KC Are you aware that your husbandrsquos girlfriend and her husband got a divorce

ESM Yes I know

KC [Reads from the affidavit] Were you aware of Mr Cargillrsquos name in the petition

ESM Yes I asked Ms Anderson to email it to me When I read it and saw his name I had to let

him know because hersquos my friend and I didnrsquot want him to think that I was a part of it I think my

husband did it because he didnrsquot have anything else on me

KC What was Mr Cargillrsquos response

ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot like that He

admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know what happened at NIB but at

the end of the day I moved on from that

KC Did you meet with Mr Cargill to tell him about it

ESM No I had a copy of it so I messaged it to him

ESM If my husband was going to lie he should have made sure his lies lined up with facts

because Mr Cargill was living in Puerto Rico so it was almost impossible

KC Did you find out from Mr Cargill what happened Are you aware that your husband struck

out any reference of Mr Cargill saying that he admits that he knew that Mr Cargill was not

having an affair with his wife

ESM No I found out on Bahamas Press Mr Cargill spoke to me and told me that he thought it

was husband trying to get out of the marriage

Her husband would call asking her questions and record it so that he could try to catch her it

a lie to use against her in court Her daughter said that one day when the dad came to school

to visit her and was asking her questions and looked as if he was recording her

One day Sean asked her to come for the maintenance money She went to the house and

found out that the lady was living in their daughterrsquos house with him at the time He had

recorded their conversation on the NIB phone She emailed Mrs King (2012) explaining that

he was recording her on NIBrsquos phone lines and explained the situation Mrs King didnrsquot

really respond or replied saying that it was noted

KC Does he contribute now

ESM He started paying $500 from Aug

KC Itrsquos your belief that he is still living with the woman

ESM Hersquos living with her He rents a townhouse (July 7 2011) Mrs Wilson has a copy of the

lease agreement

KC Other than assumptions how do you know

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

22

ESM The kids visited him periodically and told me When he moved out he didnrsquot tell us where

he lived

KC Where is the townhouse located

ESM Leeward estates Raquel Symonette Pyfrom is the sweetheartrsquos name

KC Have you spoken to Mr Cargill since

ESM Yes he is my friend and he will continue to be my friend I feel bad because he tried to

help my family

KC [Reads a statement from the affidavit] Do you confirm what was read about your husband

getting the job

ESM I confirm It was Mr Cargill looking out for us A lot of people had something to say

about Mr Cargill giving him a job

KC A lot of people are aware of the statement made between you and Mr Cargill

ESM Yes and a lot donrsquot believe Why would you ask your wife to ask the person you feel like

shersquos having an affair with to find you a job and you work under him It just doesnrsquot make sense

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband

ESM I think so because he walked away from God

The following points extracted from Mrs Mossrsquo Grant Thornton interview that were curiously

excluded from the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo and should be noted

Mrs Moss responds on page 4 as follows

1 ESM When I spoke to my husband about it he said that it wasnrsquot like that it wasnrsquot

like that He admitted it was a lie but he would never say it again I donrsquot know

what happened at NIB but at the end of the day I moved on from that

In other words she confirms that her husband confessed to lying This is particularly

important as it sets the stage for his interview with Grant Thornton and subsequent

feedback from NIBrsquos Management about his character and the feedback of the

Psychiatric Assessment NIB requested from Dr Timothy Barrett

2 Mrs Moss responds to the following question from Kenrick Christie of Grant

Thornton

KC Do you think there may be some psychological issues with your husband ESM I think

so because he walked away from God

In addition to Mrs Mossrsquo concern that Sean Moss had deep psychological issues and the

subsequent oral and written confirmation by Dr Timothy Barrett NIBrsquos Management

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

23

(Raymond Wells and Richenda King) suspected that Sean Moss had deep psychological

issues and several comments were made by Executives to this extent at the Executive

Committee Meetings As a result Mrs King requested a psychological evaluation of Mr

Moss by Dr Timothy Barrett who confirmed verbally prior to my Administrative Leave

that Mr Moss was mentally disturbed and supported his verbal comments in a written

report to NIB that was delivered to NIB after my Administrative Leave commenced

With regards the specific allegations that I used my office as the Chief Executive Officer of NIB

to

1 Victimize a member of the NIB Staff

2 To force that employee of staff to write a letter exonerating Mr Algernon Cargill

3 To suspend that member of staff from NIBrsquos employ

4 To use NIBrsquos funds to pay for his legal defense against an allegation by that member

of staff that Mr Algernon Cargill was involved in an adulterous relationship with his

wife

I respond as follows

1 This was a Human Resources department matter and the entire file reflects that the

matter was managed exclusively by the Human Resources department without any

input from me with regards any of the decisions made relative to Sean Moss his

employment or managementrsquos treatment of the deliberate lies he included in his

Affidavit Mrs Richenda King has confirmed this in her interview with the Board of

Directors and presumably with Grant Thornton and NIBrsquos file unequivocally

confirms this

2 Mr Moss offered to write a letter of apology and freely in the presence of Richenda

King and Raymond Wells and subsequently admitted to Raymond Wells Richenda

King Darrin Culmer and me that he was wrong that he never believed the statements

he included in his divorce petition and at the time he signed it knew that these

statements were false Darrin Culmer assisted Mr Moss with the preparation of the

letter and Mr Moss requested my assistance to make a change to the letter I never

insisted any change be made as this was an apology from Mr Moss and should have

reflected how he felt

3 Mr Moss had every opportunity to immediately refute his deliberately false

allegations against me and independently on February 28 2012 and with his

attorneyrsquos assistance and counsel approximately one month after he requested

vacation leave voluntarily executed and swore to an Affidavit outside of NIB that

was lodged in the Supreme Court on February 29 2012 confirming that the original

allegations in his divorce petition were false

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

24

4 Mr Mossrsquo suspension was managed exclusively by NIBrsquos Human Resources

department and I had no role or input in the process Mrs Richenda King has

confirmed this in her report of the matter and presumably also in her interview with

Grant Thornton Moreover every leave request was requested by Mr Moss directly

to his supervisor Raymond Wells and there has been no contact or discussion

between Sean Moss and I since the commencement of his self-requested vacation

unpaid and casual leave

5 It is completely false that NIBrsquos funds were used to defend Algernon Cargill against

an allegation by Sean Moss with regards an adulterous affair with his wife The

report accurately states and NIBrsquos file confirms that external counsel was engaged

and approved by Patrick Ward because of the charges of victimization made by Mr

Moss against certain members of Executive Management and had absolutely nothing

to do with his self-confessed statements of lies included in his divorce petition

6 At the time of Mr Mossrsquo suspicions as documented in his divorce petition ie in

2007 and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Moss has confirmed that he lied in his

petition I was not only not an employee of NIB but also not a resident of The

Bahamas I was a resident of Puerto Rico and lived there with my wife and children

I did not return to the Bahamas until late 2008 when I assumed the position of

Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board

7 Mr Moss had executed his petition on November 26 2010 it was not stamped by the

Supreme Court until December 4 2010 and not made known to me until February 1

2012 During this period Mr Moss was aware of the misstatement in his Petition and

said nothing to any employee of NIB

8 Mr Mossrsquo position as the System Security Officer for NIB required that he have

impeccable integrity and trust and his manager Raymond Wells refused to allow him

to return to that position as he thought in the first instance that he was not mentally

stable and secondly the impeachable trust required for that position had been broken

as a result of the lies and mischief perpetrated by Mr Moss Again there was no

involvement on my part with this decision and in fact I was not consulted by the

Human Resources Department andor Mr Raymond Wells when they met with Sean

Moss to discuss his matters My last direct communication with Mr Moss was in

February 2012 when he admitted to NIBrsquos management that he lied in his sworn

divorce petition and would remedy it

9 Leading up to the incident on NIB Property Mrs Mossrsquo car that was in the

possession of Mr Moss was burnt to the ground Subsequent to the NIB incident

Dave Forbes an NIB employee who had loaned his personal car to Mr Moss was

also burnt to the ground and there was a third incident on NIB property when a

another car in Mr Mossrsquo possession was being surveyed by a third party who had to

be ldquochasedrdquo from the NIB property by NIB Security

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

25

10 At the time of the NIB incident between Mr and Mrs Moss it was not Mr Cargillrsquos

decision alone to try to dissolve the loud and embarrassing family situation that

occurred on NIBrsquos property and in the presence of employees and customers It was

the collaborative decision of Raymond Wells Algernon Cargill and Richenda King

to dissolve the matter by inviting Mrs Moss to the Directorrsquos Office to not only

dissolve the matter and seek to introduce NIB Employee Assistance Program (NIB

paid counseling) to this fractured family

11 Mr Mossrsquo Manager Mr Raymond Wells recommended to the Human Resources

department that he be removed from the IT Department without any consultation or

input from me

12 I played no role in the management of Sean Mossrsquo matter and the Human Resources

department and Raymond Wells can confirm this again

13 Allegation 56 in the ldquoForensic Reportrdquo should presumably read January 2012 and not

January 2011

14 Sean Mossrsquo statements and actions have not been consistent and his comments that I

requested he take leave without pay is false As stated it was my understanding that

he requested the leave from his supervisor and at no time did he have any discussion

with me in the presence of any employee (I did not request that he take leave

without pay and I would not meet with him alone and at every meeting prior to his

leave insisted that another employee be present)

15 Darrin Culmer NIB Attorney and Industrial Relations Officer independently

confirmed to Grant Thornton in his interview that he did not witness any pressure

from me for an apology or for Mr Moss to take any leave No corroborating

conclusions in my favour were made by Grant Thornton although the firm had full

knowledge of this important fact

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

26

Allegation 6 ndash The Fresh Creek Clinic Construction Issue

Before proceeding to respond to this allegation the following should be noted

1 This project was managed exclusively by Osbourne Moxey NIBrsquos Project Manager

and not by me

2 Mr Dave Neymour and I have not had a conversation with regards to this project or

any project at NIB as I was not comfortable meeting with him alone given my

reservations and the public statements made by Ms Theresa Burrows at the time that

he was not trustworthy

3 Mr Neymour recommended his cousin Lewis Construction as the contractor for this

project At the time and through discussions with Osbourne Moxey it was

confirmed that the principal of this company was Dave Neymourrsquos cousin that

Lewis Construction was not registered with the National Insurance Board and

further its bid was amongst the highest

4 Mr Osbourne Moxey was concerned about any recommendation from Mr Neymour

as he had received reports from the following contractors that Mr Dave Neymour

had requested that they pad invoices pressured their employees for money requested

direct personal payments from the companies or pay him for advancing their

projects No contractor had wanted to go on the record and many have now indicated

that they will

i Gary Taylor of CLS Landscaping made complaints to Osbourne Moxey

ii Fresh Carpet and Dyeing Myles La-Roda TA made complaints to Osbourne

Moxey and me about Mr Neymourrsquos actions towards his employees

iii Kenuth Knowles made complaints to Osbourne Moxey and me that Mr

Neymour continuously requested money from him and that personal loans made

to Mr Neymour from his company were not repaid

iv Samp G Construction Company owned by Sterling Smith and Senator Jerome

Gomez Sterling Smith made these disclosures to Osbourne Moxey and V

Theresa Burrows

v Mr Kevin Christie brother of Prime Minister Perry G Christie Complaints

made by Sidney Cargill to me

5 As no contractor had wanted to go on the record at the time and NIB could not prove

the allegations a decision was made by Osbourne Moxey and later by V Theresa

Burrows to not continue Mr Neymourrsquos contract after expiry as there were too many

complaints from contractors that he had requested ldquopaymentsrdquo from their employees

or directly from them Ms Burrows also stated her views publicly in the Human

Resources Committee Meeting in October 2012

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

27

6 Mr Osbourne Moxey managed this project and notwithstanding the documented

disclosures to him by me based on his own independent professional analysis he

recommended HEW Construction Company not me I understand he recommended

HEW Construction Company because the company had done previous satisfactory

work on the Fresh Creek Clinic its price was the most competitive and that his

recommendation was supported by his technical advisors including the Project

Quantity Surveyor NIBrsquos file clearly shows that the recommendation to use HEW

Construction Company was made my Osbourne Moxey and not me

7 No other assumptions can be made about my involvement and the file and Mr

Osbourne Moxeyrsquos documented comments in the file confirm the basis for his

recommendation and actions taken and the disclosure made by me

8 With regards the allegations made against Dave Neymour the following should be

noted with regards comments 4iv) and 4v) above

i Notwithstanding the complaints made to Ms Theresa Burrows about Mr

Neymourrsquos attempted extortion of funds from SampG Construction Company a

decision outside of her authority was made and communicated to not terminate

Mr Neymour as to do so would support the allegations made by me in my

affidavit of with regards point 4iv)

ii With regards 4v) my allegation outlines that Mr Neymour collaborated with

Mr Kevin Christie to introduce to NIB mold-remediation equipment on the

understanding that Mr Neymour would be paid a referral After seeking

technical advice this referral of the NIB mold-remediation was not proceeded

with Sidney Cargill my brother spoke with Mr Christie and confirmed that

Mr Neymour did attempt to extort the funds from him He reported this to me

iii I relayed this concern to Mr Shane Gibson Ms Theresa Burrows and to Mr

Osbourne Moxey Mr Gibson telephoned Mr Christie in the presence of Ms

Burrows Mr Moxey and me and later confirmed to us simultaneously that Mr

Kevin Christie did corroborate my statements with regards my brother Mr

Sidney Cargill and Mr Kevin Christie and that Mr Neymourrsquos had attempted

to extort money from him

As Mr Moxey was fully aware of all of these reports from NIB contractors about Mr

Neymourrsquos conduct that had occurred at the time of the Fresh Creek Clinic Project and I am

advised that he felt very uneasy about any recommendations from him he did not support any

recommendation from Mr Neymour and in this case he was correct as Mr Neymour did not

disclose to him that Lewis Construction was owned by his cousin

With regards the other elements re management of the Fresh Creek Clinic construction project

this project was managed exclusively by Mr Moxey and I was not involved in any way and in

any decisions andor recommendations with regards the awarding of a contract or any of the

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

28

construction decisionsrecommendations In fact NIBrsquos files will confirm that Mr Moxey also

secured the recommendation of the Project Quantity Surveyor Veritas Ltd

Mr Neymour does not appear to be a credible witness and although Ms Theresa Burrows has

stated publicly to the Human Resources Committee her discomfort with Mr Neymour and

previously to Richenda King Osbourne Moxey and me and several of the Executive Committee

members The renewal of Mr Neymourrsquos contract was recommended and approved by Shane

Gibson as it was reported to me that to do otherwise would assist my action against NIB I will

not respond further to the allegations raised by Mr Neymour based on the information above

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

29

Allegation 7 ndash The Cargill Corporate Credit Card Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show no issue of abuse with my use of the credit card It also does not

reflect that Mr Patrick Ward confirmed that he approved the Corporate Credit Card that the

Financial Controller submitted the paperwork to the bank for its issuance and further that NIBrsquo

Internal Audit Department conducted a very detailed complete and comprehensive review of

every transaction and found no irregularities

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

30

Allegation 8 ndash The 700 Islands Ltd Procurement Issue

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings show I had no ownership of the subject company and that Mr

Gregory Mossrsquo related statements were false and baseless I do not take any issue with Grant

Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

31

Allegation 9 ndash Delegated Management Functions

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings are matters of fact and present no issue I do not take any issue with

Grant Thorntonrsquos findings in this area at this time

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

32

Allegation 10 ndash The Sandilands Rehabilitation Center Construction Project

It appears that Grant Thornton does not understand the rules of public tender process or even

NIBrsquos Tender process for building projects In this regard the following background and

sequence of events should be noted

1 NIB advertises for contractors to prequalify for major projects This is publicly

completed in the local newspapers and all contractors that consider they meet the

qualifying guidelines included in NIBrsquos notice are invited to collect and submit a

prequalification form

2 When the prequalification forms are returned to NIB they are provided to NIBrsquos

external consultants Lewis Architectural Services and JD Chisholm and Associates

in this instance for review and determination as to what contractors meet the required

standards It was disclosed to Mr Moxey and me by the consultants who were fully

aware that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin that Telco Enterprises LtdFloyd Wilmott

had completed a prequalification form I also publicly declared to the consultants

and Osbourne Moxey that Mr Wilmott was my cousin prior to finalization of this

process and any discussion with them would confirm this

3 After the analysis of the prequalification forms was completed and Telco Enterprises

included as one of the prequalified contractors by the consultants NIB provided this

ldquopublicrdquo information to the Ministry of Finance for review and approval together with

the direct knowledge that one of the bidders Floyd Wilmott of Telco Enterprises was

the Directorrsquos Cousin

4 The Ministry of Finance not NIB The Board of Directors or even the Director

approved the list of pre-qualified bidders that included Telco Enterprises Ltd

5 After the bidders were prequalified and had collected the tender documents the

recommendation of the analysis of the bids was completed by NIBrsquos External

Consultants together with NIBrsquos Project Manager and their recommendation was

submitted to the Board of Directors for approval At this point there was no other

opportunity to disclose to the Board of Directors as they were not involved in the

process until the Board meeting that Floyd Wilmott the principal of Telco was my

cousin Moreover Grant Thorntonrsquos independent research confirms that I have no

ownership or interest in this company

6 During this discussion as documented in the December 2 2009 minutes and prior to

any decision being made I publicly disclosed to the Directors that the recommended

bidder was my cousin as I had previously done to the external consultants who were

aware of this prior to any disclosure to Osbourne Moxey who was also aware prior

to any disclosure and to the Ministry of Finance Any interview of these

individualsagencies would confirm not only that the disclosures were made but also

their awareness of the public fact that Floyd Wilmott was my cousin

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

33

7 I have had no discussions with John Pinder other than my disclosures at the

December 2 2009 Board of Directorsrsquo meeting that the recommended bidder Telco

Enterprises Ltd was my relative and I had recused myself from the process See

below excerpts of the December 2 2009 BOD meeting

a At the Board of Directors Meeting when the decision to award the Sandilands

contract was discussed The Director made the following additional disclosure

memorialized in point 489 of the December 2 2009 minutes

ldquoThe Director pointed out that he was deliberately not a part of the process as

Telco is a relative of his and he withdrew from the Tender processrdquo

At point 4810 the following is also memorialized in the December 2 2009

minutes

ldquoMr John Pinder Chairman of the Tenders Committee said that he was not

aware of the Directorrsquos relationship to Telco The Chairman however indicated

that he was awarerdquo

Although John Pinder had made this comment it was not material as the Tenders Committee

does not and has never made the recommendations on the award of contracts ndash this was

delegated to the project consultants who collaborated with NIBrsquos Project Manager and these

individuals were fully aware of my disclosure and the relationship between Floyd Wilmott and

me The Tenders Committee delegation was to open the documents and record the bids and

during this process although I was not present and Grant Thornton should surely be aware of

this if the proper investigation was completed the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project

Manager were fully aware of Telcorsquos inclusion and the relationship

Grant Thorntonrsquos report does not explain the following for works completed on this

project in 2005 by the former General Contractor (not Telco Enterprises Ltd)

1 The entire roof installed by the Former General Contractor prior in 2005 had to be

removed as per the recommendations from McAce Technical ServicesBasil

McIntosh who was engaged by Lewis Architectural Services This significantly

increased the project budget

2 The Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Services installed and paid for in 2005 had

to be removed and reinstalled as these did not meet the required building code and the

technical experts advanced this recommendation in their report

3 These works were approved by the Ministry of Works and NIB and paid for during

the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National Insurance and Housing

4 At the time of the award of the contract to the former General Contractor this

recommendation was not supported by the Ministry of Works andor NIB

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

34

management but during the time that Shane Gibson was the Minister of National

Insurance and Housing the project was awarded to the former General Contractor

5 Telco Enterprises had considerable remedial work to complete and due to the

advanced stage of deterioration of the project together with the severity of the

remedial work that also included missing structural beams and columns Telco

Enterprises or any contractor for that matter could not have estimated 100 of the

defects and remediation required

It is unclear who made all of the Sandilands project allegations in the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report and I specifically respond as follows although I am unaware of the origin of

these allegations although the motive appears clear

1 It is simply untrue that on January 27 2009 the Board was advised that Lewis

Architectural Services was selected and engaged as the Architectural Consultants for

the Sandilands project

Fact Lewis Architectural Services responded to a NIB Tender and was

recommended by the NIB Buildings Committee as the preferred Lead Consultant for

this project

2 Grant Thorntonrsquos Allegation and Finding on page 154 of the Forensic Report is

reckless and inaccurate as it states that I exercised significant control and influence

over the operations of NIB and found it interesting that I had only advised the Board

of Directors that the principal of Telco was his ldquocousinrdquo when it was about to win a

NIB bid for $8654 million

Fact Grant Thornton appears to be uninformed of NIBrsquos Pre-qualification and

Tender Process or tendering in general and perhaps this explains the reckless

statement primarily as there was no other opportunity to advise of Telcorsquos

relationship and in the second instance I had recused myself completely from the

NIB Tender Process and any communication submitted was the recommendation of

the external consultants and NIBrsquos Project Manager Moreover full disclosures were

made to the Lead Consultant the Project Quantity Surveyor and the former Prime

Minister of this ldquovery publicrdquo information Further I did not benefit from this

transaction and for the same reasons explained with regards the Bahamas First

Disclosure and the Jes-El-Car Disclosure there was no reason for me to disclose a

public fact again when I had done so on many previous occasions and in the case of

the final disclosure to the Board of Directors the decision was still made to proceed

and award the contract to Telco notwithstanding my final disclosure

I have no shares or interest in Telco Enterprises Ltd and it is therefore unclear and

incorrect for Grant Thornton to suggest that there is a basis under IAS 24 to disclose

the fact that the principal of this company is my relative (cousin) and to include this

disclosure in the Financial Statements or anywhere other than the Minutes of the

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

35

Board of Directors This is a clear misunderstanding of the rules of Disclosure under

Related Party Disclosures - IAS 24 The appropriate and proper disclosures were

made to the Board of Directors prior to the Board recommending Telco and prior to

the Ministry of Finance approving Telco

3 Grant Thornton appears uninformed about the function of NIBrsquos Tender Committee

as clearly demonstrated in its findings on page 154 of the Forensic Report where the

firm states that there was not a proper Tenders Committee meeting

Fact The role of the Tenders Committee was to open the bid documents in a

transparent manner and record the bids The Tenders Committee did not have any

responsibility to analyze bids and advance a recommended contractor If all

committee members could not be present to open a tender document management

often substituted and ensured that a fully transparent and documented process

followed It is therefore not a significant or material finding that the Tenders

Committee meeting may not have been properly constituted by committee members

4 Grant Thorntonrsquos finding relative to Telcorsquos NIB contributions status does not reflect

on my performance as Director The NIB process required the Buildings Division

headed by Mr Osbourne Moxey to obtain confirmation from the Compliance

department that vendors were current with their NIB contributions and not me In

this instance representation was made to the Compliance department by Mr

Osbourne Moxey and Telcorsquos NIB status certified as current prior to his

recommendation of payments to Telco During this period there was a dispute

lodged by Telco about its NIB records and this was rectified by Mr Gregory Collie

who I am advised subsequently certified the majority of payments for Mr Osbourne

Moxey andor to his team

Notwithstanding these facts the clear exculpatory information was made available to Grant

Thornton in my affidavit of 28th

November 2012 and ignored and the full disclosures made by

me and the awareness of the Board prior to the recommendation of Telco Enterprises as the

preferred contractor for the remedial construction work that started in 2005 and was abandoned

in early 2007 on the Sandilands project Grant Thornton has chosen to advise that my disclosure

was limited and that I controlled the process of the selection of Telco Neither I nor the Board

of Directors can approve a contract of this size The proper disclosures were made full

representation of the Boardrsquos resolution with supporting details to the Ministry of Finance

and this contract was approved by the Ministry of Finance not the Director not the Board

of Directors and certainly not Telco Enterprises Ltd

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

36

Allegation 11 ndash Salaries and Bonuses ndash Executive Management

The Forensic Report completed by Grant Thornton with regards this allegation contains several

opinions that are not supported by fact even though clarifying evidence is provided within the

report andor enclosures provided by Grant Thornton

Extracts from several of the actual minutes of the Human Resources Committee should be

reviewed prior to my clarifying this particular finding that appears to be based on the

misrepresentations in the Forensic Report

In this regard the e following are direct extracts from some of the NIB Human Resources

Committee Minutes that were all tabled and provided by Patrick Ward in his capacity of

Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to the Board of Directors and subsequently to the

Ministry of Finance Further salary increases and bonus payments were also documented in the

following Human Resources Committee minutes and excerpts from a few of the Human

Resources Committee minutes that I can now access given the limited time afforded to respond

to the Forensic Report are as follows

Executive Over-base Compensation was initially introduced to NIB on September 11

2009 at the Human Resources Committee meeting Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and

Debbie Ferguson ie 100 of the Committee was present at this meeting and the

following comments were recorded

30 Executive Structure Compensation and Over-base Compensation

311 Mrs King explained that Management wanted to ensure that the new jobs were

aligned with the structure recommended by Ernst and Young as well as the Hay

Group

312 She went on to explain that the Director was at the top of the new structure and

the other Executives made up the five levels below

313 She said that no compensation was implemented for the existing Executives only

the new ones coming in

314 She continued that Management wanted to ensure equity by yearsrsquo end as there

are significant inequities in the structure

315 The Chairman responded that he agrees that the current pay structure should be

looked at sooner rather than later and then place a time line for implementation

He said that it is important to look at what the job is worth and what the

individual is worth

316 Archdeacon Bowleg stated that he agrees with the Chairman and said that this

exercise should be expedited

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

37

317 The Chairman commented further that if the matter lingers it could lose its

worth

318 Ms Ferguson said that she also agrees with the comments made by the other two

committee members

319 The Director also asked the Committee to approve increasing the duty allowances

that executives receive as the new Vice Presidents coming in who are on the

same level as some of the existing Executives are receiving higher allowances

3110 The Chairman was of the view that the Committee should be given until October

before making a decision on this matter He invited Management to provide the

Committee with exactly what it is they are seeking He further stated that it is his

opinion that the allowances should be added to the base salary so that this issue

does not arise again

On August 30 2011 when Patrick Ward and Etienne Bowleg representing 6667 of the

Committee a duly constituted Quorum was present and Ms Debbie Ferguson had sent

apologies and was provided with copy of the minutes at subsequent meetings the following

comments were made

38 2010-2011 Salary Survey

381 Mrs King informed that the Hay Group completed the Salary Survey and the

results were presented to the committee The highlights were as follows

a 25 of NIB Executive Salaries fall below the market average

b 32 of NIB Executives total compensation falls below the market average

c 10 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries fall below

the market average

d 3 of NIB non-management and management staff salaries and bonus fall

below the market average

3171 The Directorrsquos contract will end October 20 2011

3172 On a motion made by the Chairman and seconded by Etienne Bowleg the

following resolution was adopted

ldquoBe it resolved that the renewal of the Directorrsquos contract be forwarded for

Ministerial approval for a term of four (4) years on terms to be mutually agreed

and broadly in line with existing terms and conditions

In this regard please refer to letter from Patrick Ward Chairman of the Board of Directors to

Ehurd Cunningham Acting Financial Secretary dated October 5 2011 wherein the contract

renewal was requested and which also noted to the Minister that the Directorrsquos base salary was

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

38

$163072 and increased with the Ministry of Financersquos approval to $171225 The Minister

subsequently approved the contract renewal on the terms outlined by Patrick Ward by way of its

letter dated October 10 2011 signed by David Davis Acting Financial Secretary There was no

attempt by Patrick Ward to conceal the fact that I was initially employed at $140000 and

consistent with clause 50 in my employment contract my salary had now increased by 1648

over a three year period to $163072 It was not my responsibility to advise the Board of the

relative clauses in my Employment Contract that made provisions for a salary adjustment andor

any adjustments provided Further at no time did I have the authority to increase my salary and

the evidence clearly shows that increases were not provided singularly to me but collectively to

all Executives and in some cases the increases provided to some Executives exceeded the

approved increases that I actually received

February 16 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg and Debbie Ferguson representing

100 of the Human Resources Committee was present the following comments were made

316 Executive Issues

317 Executive Compensation Issues

3171 The Chairman advised the committee that all Executives were evaluated and

received satisfactory evaluations He has copies of the evaluations and supported

the ratings

3172 He said that he reviewed and approved the individual submissions for increases

which equate to a combined 7 increase over the prior year The increases in

salaries are to become effective January 1 2011 and the endorsement of the HR

Committee was now being requested

3173 He went on to say that the total salary for 2010 was $770427 and in 2011 it will

be $826660 ndash the dollar value difference was $56233 for the entire Executive

Group

3174 On a motion made by Rev Etienne Bowleg seconded by Ms Debbie Ferguson

and unanimously carried the Committee approved the compensation package as

outlined above

3175 The Chairman stated that the bonus allowance given to Executives was included

in the 2010 budget and was allocated in accordance with the performance

measurement guidelines and managementrsquos policies for 2010

Again on December 1 2011 when Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson

representing 100 of the Committee was present the following comments were made

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

39

314 Executive Evaluations

3141 Management advised that the review was completed for Executives on the newly

installed Halogen System and was reviewed with the Chairman

3142 The Director advised that although the team was performing satisfactorily he

wanted to continue to focus on the following areas

Leadership

Dealing with Change(or Change Management)

Taking Responsibility

Team Building

3143 The Chairman confirmed that the review process will be finalized before yearrsquos

end

315 Executive Compensation

3151 The Chairman advised that the Committee agreed that the budgetary guidelines

will be used for the awarding of Salary Increases for 2012 and Performance

Bonuses based on individual performance and the performance of the Board and

that he would negotiate these with management on behalf of the committee

Again on February 28 2012 there were further Human Resources Committee discussions on this

matter Present were Patrick Ward Etienne Bowleg Debbie Ferguson representing 100 of the

Committee

50 Executive Compensation

51 The Chairman advised that he had received recommendation for salary increases

for executives for 2012 He will review the recommendations and finalize based

on an average range of 2-4 in overall adjustments and the individual

performance of executives

Importantly and as stated previously the Chairman Patrick Ward representing his Delegated

Authority as Chair of the Human Resources Committee discussed the summaries of all HR

discussions including Executive Compensation with his committee and the Board of Directors

Clearly with my provision of only these excerpts from NIB files that were also made available

to Grant Thornton Auditors and in some cases included in their Forensic Report it was clear

firstly who approved the Salary Adjustments to ALL Executives including me and secondly

who approved the Over base Compensation and who was present and supported these

adjustmentspayments It was also clear to Grant Thornton but excluded from their report that it

is the consistent practice of the Secretary to the Board of Directors to consistently and regularly

provide the Ministry of Finance with copies of all Board of Directors and Committee Minutes

included therein

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

40

It is very interesting that the following important FACTS were excluded from the Grant

Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 1 The original contract and the renewal both received Ministerial approval The interim

increases were based on contract provision 50 Salary and approved by the Chairman of the

Human Resources Committee who had delegated authority from this committee to negotiate

salaries on behalf of the committee and the Board of Directors

Fact 2 The Performance Bonuses were awarded to me based on the contract provision 80

Performance Based Bonus Scheme In both provisions I was eligible to benefits as they

applied to ldquoExecutive Managementrdquo Again all provisions of both contracts were approved by

the Minister with responsibility for National Insurance the Human Resources Committee and

NIBrsquos Board of Directors

Fact 3 Approved Performance Bonus payments were not paid only to me ndash these payments were

provided to all NIB Executives including the Legal Officer the Custodian of the National

Insurance Act and the Financial Controller the custodian of the financial records the Internal

Auditor the custodian of the Audit Process based on documented Performance Evaluations and

approved Hay Job Evaluations ratings

Fact 4 The Act requires the approval of the Minister for the Salary of the Director which was

in all cases approved as part of the contract approval process This was the responsibility of

NIBrsquos Chairman and in fact in the legal opinion by Thomas A E Evans QC Grant Thornton

Report p221 ldquothere was no legal duty on the Chairman or the Director either express or

implied to advise the Board of the salary of the Director at the time of the extensionrdquo

Fact 5 The NIB Board was obligated to honor the contract provisions of my contract as

Director in the same way it was required to honor the unusual contract provision of Director

Lennox McCartney with regards to a benefit of a pension based on the pension of the

Governor of the Central Bank although the Board considered this improper as well as

informal extension of his contract and his NIB paid secondment to the Registrar of Insurance

Agency

Fact 6 The complete Ernst amp Young Report and Hay Group Reports were provided to the

entire Board which included all of the members of the Human Resources Committee The

minutes of the Board of Thursday 21 May 2009 provided the detail discussion points on both

reports in section 30 under separate sub-sections based on the record of the discussion The

Human Resources Legal Advisor Mr Rawson McDonald participated in this special call

meeting to provide details on both reports In addition to this detailed review the Human

Resources Committee was provided with the requested updated Hay Group Survey as recorded

in the Human Resources Committee minutes of 30 August 2011 As noted the committee was

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

41

provided with the complete report and the discussion of same is recorded in section 38 of the

minutes These minutes are as reproduced in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

Fact 7 The previous Human Resources Committee minutes of February 27 2007 Grant

Thornton report p162 continues to p167 and includes increases for the years 2005-2009 (Grant

Thornton report p167-Secton 31011) for Executive Management including the then Director

Mr Lennox McCartney It outlines the promotion of Mrs Cecile Williams-Bethel from

Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Grant Thornton report p167-Section310) These

decisions were not questioned by Grant Thornton and accepted as approved based on their note

as follows ldquoAdditionally while no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors at the

subsequent Board of Directors Meeting on March 27 2007 the referenced meeting was

ldquoadopted as readrdquo GT p167 This seems to be an accepted inconsistency and clear exhibition of

bias towards me in the Grant Thornton NIB Forensic Report particularly when there was clear

evidence of the similar management of compensation matters by the former Board of Directors

It is curious that approval could be granted and acknowledged to the previous Human Resources

Committee in this way and such approval to the committee led by Patrick Ward is not

considered withdrawn This draws attention to the double standard in the Grant Thornton

report

Fact 8 ldquoIt is important to note thathellipNIBrsquos Board approved bonuses as part of the

ANNUAL BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS (each year)rdquo In every case the ldquosubmittedrdquo

executive bonus amounts were authorizedrdquo Grant Thornton Report p200 Moreover the

Annual Budgets were prepared by the Financial Controller presented by her to the Board of

Directors and disclosures made as to the line items and she also answered every question

faithfully on the budgets before they were unanimously approved annually The bonus

payments are a separate line item on NIBrsquos annual budget and were audited annually by

external Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement partner Mr Gowon Bowe and no

exceptions were ever raised to management to the Board of Directors andor in the Financial

Statements about salary adjustments andor over-base compensation payments to executive

management

It is interesting to note that from October ndash November 2012 the Minister and the Human

Resources Committee without any analysis or due diligence approved salary increases to two

NIB Executives Cecile Williams-Bethel ($30000) and Theresa Burrows ($21000) retroactive

to their hire dates although these two newly re-hired executives were hired by NIB at market

rates in June and July 2012 and he approved their compensation amounts Further selectively

and obviously discriminately Minister Gibson directed increases for Heather Maynard Sonia

Gill and Dr Kevin Bowe and excluded Richenda King Raymond Wells Phaedra Knowles and

Whitney Patton although he was fully aware that all executives had received not only HR

Committee approved over-base compensation payments in 2012 but also salary increases as

documented in the Human Resources Committee minutes in 2012 It is curious that the Minister

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

42

Gibson refused to award salary adjustments to the remaining four (4) performing NIB executives

and the reasons why they were excluded is still not clear to me particularly as there was no

rationale or business reason to award these additional payments in 2012 The subsequent public

statements made by Minister Gibson that the salary adjustments were made in the first instance

to the two newly rehired NIB executives as he wanted to close the gap between their salaries and

that of the Director ignores the fact that he approved the initial salaries offered when they were

rehired without question and secondly that the salaries offered were consistent with the

recommended ranges for their position as evidenced in not only the Hay Reports but

independent market surveys undertaken by NIB The subsequent comments made with regards

the rationale for the salary adjustments to the additional executives is also shocking particularly

as every NIB executive received salary adjustments approved by Chairman Patrick Ward based

not only their salary scale as recommended by the previous Board of Directors and also in the

Hay Reports and there is no evidence of any discriminatory practices in the award of their salary

adjustments In fact their adjustments were directly correlated to not only their objective

performance evaluations but also to their job pay scales It was also ignored or not included in

Minister Gibsonrsquos comments that the Job Evaluation of the Director is almost 3x in weight that

of the average NIB executive and using the approved and universally accepted Hay

Methodology the compensation should bear this out however the findings in the Grant

Thornton report and the recent public statements by Minister Gibson confirm that this

understanding and information was ignored

Shockingly I was advised that the Human Resources Committee and Minister Gibson again

arbitrarily approved salary increases and promotions for nearly 200 NIB employees that were

deemed PLP loyal in December 2012 although increases were already awarded by way of the

Industrial Agreements and all of these increases fell outside of the two NIB Industrial

Agreement This arbitrary measure of additional promotions and salary adjustments in all cases

were ultra vires to the Industrial Agreement and documented Human Resources policies and

were directed by Minister Gibson to Theresa Burrows and Cecile Bethel to Mrs Richenda King

to execute It was surprising at the rather unorganized and confusing way that the names were

advanced for salary adjustments and in most cases we learnt from the two executives managing

this process on behalf of Minister Gibson that employee X was a Campaign worker for

Candidate Y and similar comments Both Unions accepted these promotions to the

dissatisfaction of the majority of their members and this entire exercise still appears to be

an issue of major discontent within NIB as some of the employees not promoted or who did

not receive salary adjustments fear that they were victimized Productivity and morale is

said to be at an all time low as staff members search for the rationale for the promotion

exercise and question why they were not promoted The cost to NIB of this promotion

exercise exceeded $500000 per annum

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

43

Opinion of Grant Thornton

Although the Ernst amp Young and Hay Reports are provided in their entirety and discussed

separately Grant Thorntonrsquos opinion is that ldquothey appear to be treating them as one reportrdquo

Grant Thornton Forensic Report p129 This is not supported by the facts and the basis for

this stretched opinion is not clear and quite confusing

Legal Opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC

ldquoIt is immaterial that neither Mr Ward nor Mr Cargill nor the Human Resources VP

specifically brought these to the attention of the Boardhellipare bound to exercise fair and

reasonableness in discharging their duties and to act honestlyhellipIt may therefore not be

open to Directors to now complain of not being told of the salary increase componentrdquo

Grant Thomas report p223 There was clearly no attempt by Patrick Ward Chairman of the

Board of Directors and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee to conceal any

information at any level to any Board or Committee Member and the documented minutes and

his disclosure of all minutes and provision of same to the entire Board of Directors and the

Ministry of Finance evidence his transparency in this regard

The legal opinion of Thomas A E Evans QC ldquoThere is however a caveat which arises out

of the fact that the Board of Directors approved the budget that included the salary

increases in question GT Report p223

General comments in the Grant Thornton Forensic Report

1 Grant Thornton stated throughout the report that I refused to be interviewed by Grant

Thornton unless questions were provided in advance This claim is not only false but

cannot be supported with any facts particularly as the myriad of correspondence from

my attorneys to Grant Thornton many of which were gratuitous and have not been

responded to continuously confirm my willingness to participate in the Forensic

Investigation exercise Moreover my request for advance questions was consistent

with the behavior of Grant Thornton towards at least two of the NIB Employees that

were interviewed and to treat me differently would show a direct prejudice and

usurpation of my rights to due process It is interesting that there is no expansion in

the Forensic Report of the public statements made by Grant Thorntonrsquos Managing

Partner who stated several times in the media and in written communication to Sears

amp Co that they had no questions for me however I was free to visit their office and

ask any questions that I may have had If Grant Thornton did not wish to provide me

with the specific questions and issues they should simply have advised me andor my

attorneys of this and request that I be interviewed without the provision of such

2 The Human Resources Committee was not provided with a full copy of latest the Hay

Report ndash refer to Minutes dated August 30 2011

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

44

3 The comments on page 16 re Section 40 of the National Insurance Act re Directorrsquos

Compensation and page 176 re Part VI of the National Insurance Act

(Administration) do not apply in this instance as my salary was not a part of any

Industrial Agreement

4 Comments on page 209 final paragraph ldquoIt is clear from the evidence presented to

Grant Thornton that a minimum of two (2) members of the Board who served on the

Human Resources Committee were unaware of Mr Wardrsquos actions in approving the

Executive Bonus Payments are not supported by the minutes of this committee

5 Comments on page 210 point 114b that Executive Bonuses in 2010 were in the

range of fifteen (15) to seventy one point eight percent (7180) of the base

salaries of executives I received a 7180 bonus on my 2010 base salary of

$145000 This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and support the allegations of

Gregory Moss and Minister Shane Gibson in that the bonus payments made in

January 2010 relate directly to the 2009 Bonus payment and the payments in

December 2010 relate to payment of the calendar 2010 Bonus Payment Surprisingly

there is no mention of payments to any other executive and only an attempt to focus

on payments that I received This seems to be deliberate attempts to not only further

damage my character and reputation and also to ignore the fact that NIBrsquos entire

executive management received these approved payments

6 Comments on page 212 of the Grant Thornton Forensic Report state on the matter of

bonus payments of $723k that the members of the HR Committee did not have the

specific knowledge of the Hay Group report This is incorrect Grant Thorntonrsquos

own report states that they had the earlier report and the Human Resources

Committee minutes reflect that they had the 2009 and 2010 report and also the 2009

Ernst and Young Manpower Assessment Report that stated that NIB executives were

underpaid

7 I donrsquot understand the relevance of the comments on page 214 of the Grant Thornton

Forensic Report which state my compensation from appointments to various Boards

in my capacity as NIB Director These appointments were all made with the approval

of the BoardChairman and the Ministry of Finance I surely did not appoint myself

to any of these Boards and moreover there are currently at least two NIB employees

that now sit on other statutorypublic Boards Should this have also been disclosed in

Grant Thorntonrsquos Forensic Report or was the focus to only destroy my reputation

It is surprising that the Grant Thornton Forensic Review that was wide in scope did not include

the following

1 Minister Shane Gibson directed that NIB not go through a tender process to purchase

30 Ipads for the Board of Directors and Executive Management Team and instead

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

45

procure these directly through an agent that procured PLP paraphernalia for the 2012

General Elections Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith In fact Mr Gregory Moss had

advised the Board of Directors that the Ipad acquisition was only to be purchased

from the vendor (Nybor InvestmentsRobyn Smith) recommended by Minister

Gibson The vendor simply purchased the duty free items from Best Buy and added a

substantial mark-up to the purchase

2 Minister Gibson interrupted the final stage of producing a purchase order for the

printing of NIB Prescription Drug Plan Manuals et al that was awarded to American

Printing Arts by the National Prescription Drug Plan and after receipt of the

quotations from NIB as to the cost of the printing directed this job to Nybor

InvestmentsRobyn Smith whose price was marginally below the quotations received

from American Printing Arts the recommended bidder

3 Minister Gibson directed the sale of an NIB vehicle (2005 Toyota Yaris) in 2012 that

was fully functioning in NIBrsquos fleet without a tender process to an employee in

Abaco the spouse of a deceased union colleague at BCPOU I am advised that he

was very troubled that this employee the survivor of a former union colleague had

no transportation and had to walkhike to work in Marsh Habour He collaborated

with 2 NIB employees to provide this NIB vehicle to the employee as a gift from

him on the understanding that one of the two employees pay for the freight of the

vehicle from Nassau to Abaco and the second pay for the insurance For the ldquogiftrdquo

vehicle I am advised he provided cash to Theresa Burrows to conclude the purchase

The ldquogiftrdquo vehicle that was provided to the employee was a complete surprise to the

Abaco employee and NIB employees are concerned that this vehicle was provided

outside of the NIB tender process and also outside of the process NIB uses to sell

fleet vehicle to employees

4 Even more alarming Minister Gibson should explain the basis under which he

directed the Board of Directors in 2012 to award Ranmar Construction the contract

for the JL Center project at the same price ($8879 million) that the contract was

awarded to Coastline Construction Company a company that won the tender through

NIBrsquos transparent and public tender process Further Minister Gibson directed that

Coastline must surrender the JL Center Contract and if they did not then the contact

they also won through NIBrsquos then transparent tender process would be taken away

from them together with the JL Center Project During these directions to NIB

Minister Gibson was fully aware that Ranmar had executed a Deed of Release with

NIB for the JL Center project and NIB had no financial obligation to Ranmar at the

time he withdrew a contract issued to Coastline legitimately Minister Gibson was

also fully aware that Ranmar did not bid on this job that they did not provide any

costing or analysis that this job could be completed by Ranmar for Coastlinersquos price

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

46

who Ranmarrsquos sub contractors were andor any normal due diligence that was

associated at the time with NIBrsquos tender process

5 Also it is surprising to note that the Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not evidence

a plan originated by Theresa Burrows wherein all of the NIB contracts that were

subject to public tender was determined without public advertisement to be awarded

to select Engineers Quantity Surveyors contractorrsquos et al This plan was prepared by

Theresa Burrows Osbourne Moxey via telephone as he was on sick leave and me

under Minister Gibsonrsquos direction to Theresa Burrows and provided to Minister

Gibson via email by me in October 2012 Osbourne Moxey and I assisted Ms

Burrows in the completion of the report and the identification of the likely consultants

that I am advised the Minister wanted to award these contracts many for projects not

yet even started or scoped

6 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not show the current Engineers Quantity

Surveyors and Electricians Air-Condition specialists Plumbers etc engaged by NIB

the rates they are being paid the frequency and location of their engagements the

tender process used for all of these engagements etc Was there a practical or even

deliberate reason to exclude this information from the current Grant Thornton report

7 The Grant Thornton Forensic Report did not conclude the Ministerrsquos intent to cancel

the NIB transparent process for awarding service contracts for security services air-

condition maintenance plumbing elevator maintenance janitorial services etc and

instead award these contracts to companies that were deemed loyal to the Minister or

the PLP NIB previously awarded these contracts without any political input to the

vendors that provided the most comprehensive and competitive tender through NIBrsquos

public Tender process and the tender exercise for these and similar services was

always open to the entire public via public advertisements in the newspapers

Instead vendors are being ldquoselectedrdquo to respond to the tenders and the vendor who

currently provides these services to NIB now consider that their contracts may be

cancelled because of a change in government and not because of any concern about

the service they provide

Until this point I have not made any direct comments about the actions of the current Minister of

Labour and National Insurance as it appeared to me that the actions against me were only

orchestrated by Mr Gregory Moss and the Minister claimed to me at the time that he had no idea

or knowledge why Mr Moss was acting in this manner I believed and primarily because of

disclosures made to me by him that Mr Moss was acting without his knowledge direction or

approval However I am now concerned because of the public statements now being made by

Minister Gibson and the misplaced intensity to blame me for areas outside of my direct control

and not attribute any responsibility to the functional managers or executives - all responsibility

to me as if I wore 20 hats simultaneously when there were paid managers and executives who

had direct oversight and control of their functional areas Unfortunately it does appear

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

47

particularly because of comments made on the Darold Miller May 10 show about plans to

address my family and me in the House of Assembly that the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance in the first instance and secondly the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party are

now publicly discussing this legal matter and the Grant Thornton Forensic Report that was

completed without any input from me in the National Media I am very concerned that I am

being forced to not only defend my good name and that of my family against allegations of the

former Chairman of the National Insurance Board the Minister of Labour and National

Insurance and now against the entire Progressive Liberal Party in view of the public comments

now being made by Mr Bradley Roberts the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mr

Shane Gibson the Minister of Labour and National Insurance This is particularly troubling to

my family and me as my family had always supported the Progressive Liberal Party my father

was buried on March 9 2013 with his PLP Stalwart Councilor Medallion on his neck and my

oldest brother is currently an active Progressive Liberal Party Stalwart Councilor My entire

family that is resident in Yamacraw had publicly declared their support for Melanie Griffin over

the many years she has represented the Yamacraw constituency where I am also resident Until

these attacks started on my name and that of my family Although my political affiliation is of

no significant consequence and relevance to this matter any careful review would have

confirmed complete alignment with my family and at the time Mr Hubert Ingraham hired me as

the Director and CEO of the National Insurance Board presumably on the recommendation of

the National Insurance Board he never inquired about my political affiliation during a direct

interview I had with him or has he ever discussed any political matters with me I was hired to

do a job and chose to resign my former position at a major international company at a significant

financial pay cut to join the National Insurance Board and the terms of my contract that

includes provision for compensation are now a matter of public record and debate In fact the

former Prime Minister publicly stated in the House of Assembly during one of the many attacks I

suffered from Shane Gibson that he did not understand why the PLP was attacking me as to the

best of his knowledge that I and my family were at that time supporters of that party This

matter is not a political matter and politicians should allow the courts or the parties involved to

determine the final outcome and stop using the public resources available to further defame my

name and that of my family

Finally I am even more concerned about the comments made by Minister Gibson on the Darold

Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 in response to a call from my sister Dr Ursula Cargill

PhD a graduate of The College of The Bahamas Morgan State University the State University

of New York at Buffalo and Princeton University In response to remarks made by my younger

sister who acted without my knowledge or input the Minister stated emphatically that I offered

my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows whom he re-hired at NIB in June 2012 a yearrsquos salary

on the understanding that no one in NIB had to know about this transaction This comment is

not only false but ridiculous for many reasons the most important is that I have no

responsibility for payroll and if it were possible to complete this action it could not be done

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

48

without the full awareness of the Human Resources department the Financial Controller and the

Internal and External Auditors particularly as I have never written or prepared a check since I

joined the National Insurance Board on October 20 2008 He concluded his remarks with

comments to the extent that he will report on this matter in the House of Assembly presumably

because there is ample protection for slander These comments should be made outside of the

House of Assembly where I can utilize the resources available to ordinary citizens to protect my

name and reputation It is also concerning that he stated in the public domain that is outside of

the House of Assembly ie on the Darold Miller Show on Friday May 10 2013 that I

terminated my first cousin Theresa Cargill-Burrows when the records would reflect that she

was terminated I believe in February of 2008 and I did not join NIB until October 20 2008 At

the time of her termination I was employed by Chevron Corporation and resident in Puerto Rico

Moreover he also advised the Nation on this Talk Show that I terminated several other

executives ndash this again is false and NIBrsquos records will reflect that the NIB Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance not me retired two of these

executives (one of whom the Minister has since rehired) and ended the employment of the

remaining three The records will also reflect the compensation provided to all of the

individuals and it is not the case as reported by the Minister that the severance received by the

rehired individuals was repaid certainly not during my active tenure as the Director and CEO of

the National Insurance Board I have had no authority to hire andor terminate any executive of

NIB and a review of NIBrsquos files will confirm the documented justification the Human Resources

Committee the Board of Directors and the Ministry of Finance utilized to arrive at these

decisions

Yours sincerely

Algernon M Cargill

cc Prime Minister the Honorable Perry G Christie

The Honorable Minister D Shane Gibson

Board of Directors NIB

Enclosures

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

49

Enclosures 1- 8

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

the NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD

OF THE COMMONWEALTH Algernon Cargill DIRECTOROF THE BAHAMAS

October 92012

Mr Gregory Moss Chainnan The National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Moss

Re Sandy Port Apartment - Jes-El Car Ltd

I refer to the Contracts and Tenders committee meeting which was held at the Board Room of the National Insurance Board headquarter on October 8 2012 that commenced at 4pm and ended at approximately 10pm This meeting was chaired by Patrick Davis and Gregory Moss Chainnan of the Board of Directors along with Deputy Director Bernard Evans and Directors Jason Moxey and Harry Collie and co-opted member Johnny Taylor were in attendance

The specific reason for this communication is to provide absolute clarity on the purpose for the lease of Sandy Port Apartment the role of the executive responsible for the security of the lease the process used in selecting the appropriate apartment from a list of other properties and the transparency of information to the then Chairman of the Board of NIB Mr Patrick Ward and the information provided to the former Prime Minister Mr H Ingraham with respect to the approval of the lease

It is appropriate to highlight at the outset the purpose of the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment was to facilitate and provide adequate accommodation for the contractors engaged in the installation of the National Prescription Drug Plan software specifically Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS) required for the implementation of the National Prescription Drug Plan Project In order to fully implement this programme NIB was mandated to secure the suitable and appropriate IT System to successfully launch this project under rigid completion guidelines The capital expenditure for this project was projected to amount to $1 0 million for the software plus associated expenses (housing work permit fees travel costs etc) all included in the AIS contract It is also to be noted that the time frame for completion of this project was compressed for the launch of this project and NIB Deputy Director of Infonnation Technology was given the leadership role to complete this project

The responsibility therefore for the management of this project fell to the IT Deputy Director He took full leadership in coordinating the resources required to shepherd this project

PO Box N-750B NP Bahamas bull TEL (242) 502-1762 bull FAX 242 322-2923 bull algernoncargillnib-bahamascom

to completion In order to secure adequate physical accommodation for the off site or outside foreign contractors as specified as a requirement in the contract document the IT Executive Manager undertook to secure proper short time lease of premises in a secure area within proximity to NIB with availability of security and sufficiently sized comfortable for the contractors

Once the IT department selected the Sandy Port Apartment he submitted a request for approval of payment to me by letter date February 25 2010 for my approval which was granted on February 26 2010 However the lease was executed by Mr Wells prior to February 26th

2010 but with a commencement date of March 1 2010 on the terms of a short term lease Nonetheless prior to the approval of the payment after I fully disclosed all circumstances with regards this apartment directly to him Mr Wells and I immediately consulted the then Chairman of the Board of NIB and secured his consent to go ahead with the lease It was only after this period that approval for payment was granted on February 26 2010 In this regard we also wish to inform you that subsequently the Chairman and I met with the former Prime Minster and I fully disclosed the lease executed and all circumstances associated with it directly to him

I would particularly wish to note that Board of Directors Committee meetings have always been held in a non-contentious amicable manner characterized by mutual respect civility and a keen sense of professionalism and collegiality This productive atmosphere was fostered in a spirit of co-operation and respect and appreciation of the collective efforts of all key managers This atmosphere created and fostered a spirit ofteam work accountability trust and support which is crucial to the maintenance of a productive executive team

Needless to say I was disturbed by the antagonistic contentious contemptuous and condescending manner in which the meeting was held No doubt it seemed evident that the purpose of the antagonistic interrogation aimed at me was not to seek information but was calculated to cast doubt on my veracity in general and on my character in particular The fact that this inquisition commenced in the presence of my colleagues and peers for whom I have responsibility for the efficient and effective management of NIB was in itself an entirely demeaning and disrespectful experience I am further concerned that after I expressed concern about the discomfort that I felt as a result of the unprofessional interrogation of a matter fully approved by the then Chairman of the National Insurance Board that the aggressive antagonistic and condescending interrogation continued in the presence of all Contracts and Tenders Committee Members and the Secretary of the Board of Directors an employee that I have direct oversight of I do note that the Secretary took notes of this meeting and now formally record my wish that before any of these notes are memorialized that I be provided with a copy for review and approval and secondly that this letter form a permanent part of the file you appear to be creating

2

I wish to also document my concern about the unprofessional manner in which the committee continues to seek information on this matter from employees of NIB that report to me In several circumstances there is documented communication written by the Committees Chainnan copying members of the Board and certain members of staff but excluding me I question the purpose of this method of communication and express my discomfort at these events and their contribution to the continued unprofessional ism emanating from The Contracts and Tenders Committee of The Board of Directors

Nonetheless I will continue to attempt to foster a spirit of amicability professionalism and respect with regard to the conduct of my duties as Director of NIB and will discharge my duties accordingly It is my desire that there will be no recurrence of the behaviour displayed at the last meeting I am always prepared to accept and follow the guidelines of the Board of Directors and Chairman and will continue to perform my duties in a professional matter

Finally Mr Wells is the professional at NIB responsible for the IT project and all other decisions incidental to it including the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment therefore in the event that you have need for any further information with regard to this matter these inquiries should be addressed to him In the meantime I enclose to complete this file the communication written by Gail Carey on Monday March 12010 the Executed Lease Document the Payment Request dated February 26 2010 and the communication between Chairman Greg Moss and Raymond Wells on October 92012

Algernon Cargill Director

Cc The Hon Perry G Christie Prime Minister and Minister of Finance The Hon Phillip Brave Davis Deputy Prime Minister The Hon Shane Gibson Minister of Labour and National Insurance Mr Bernard Evans Deputy Chairman The National Insurance Board Mr Patrick Ward Former Chainnan The National Insurance Board

3

Information Technology Dept

INTERNAL

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Algernon Cargill Director

FROM Mr Raymond Wells Vice President Information Technology

DATE 25th February 2010

SUBJECT Accommodations for AIS Staff

AIS staff will be onsite for a period of four to six months working on the Drug Plan I

propose that we house them in a safe and less costly accommodation than that of a hotel

The places that best met the requirements for safety (gated) arid cost were Delaporte

Point and a condo at Sandyport The lease will be for a three month period initially and

on a month to month basis afterwards

I obtained quotes from both places for the three month period and they are as follows

bull Delaporte Point $450000 (all costs included)

bull Sandyport $666670 (all costs included)

I suggest that we house AIS staff at Sandyport as it is the best choice of the two options

The Sandyport residence has an additional bathroom and individual spaces that gives

each occupant more privacy and work space It also provides space to house a fourth

staff member as it becomes necessary

I seek your approval and assistance in this matter

Algernon Cargill

From Raymond Wells Sent Tuesday October 09 2012 807 PM To Shane D Algernon Cargill Subject FW Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012 Spm NIB

HQ

Minister Gibson and Director Cargill

I wish to refer you to the email sent by Chairman Moss today (along with my response) concerning a meeting he wants me to attend While I am at the Boards disposal and available to answer any questions and attend any meetings required of me I simply for personal obligations cannot attend Thursdays meeting

The Chairmans response to me is nothing short of threatening and intimidating among other things

I would respectfully like to relay that throughout my entire career I have never been anything other than a professional The significant changes I brought to NIB and the innovative implementation of information systems therein are a testament to this level of professionalism and commitment

Regards Raymond Wells Deputy Director The National Insurance BoardjVP Information Technology

From Raymond Wells Sent Tuesday October 09 2012 756 PM To G Moss Patrick Davis Cc Ernestine Kelson jayson_moxey06yahoocom harrycolliescotiabankcom shatea928yahoocom Richenda King Heather Maynard Subject RE Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012 5pm NIB HQ

Chairman Moss

Because of prior urgent arrangements which cannot be changed at this late date I will be unable to attend the meeting schedule for 11 October 2012 5 pm I am prepared to attend all meetings when requested to do so and I will answer all questions which are requested of me

I respectfully suggest the meeting be held at a more convenient time and date

Are for the specific questions below I have provided the answers and is available to discuss as stated above

bull indentification of who approved such rental and payments in respect of such rental

I Signed the lease for the apartment as part of my blanket authority from the Board for managing the Drug Plan Project and mandate for controlling costs Payments was subsequently approved by Director Cargill

bull whether you were aware that the apartment was owned by Director Cargills brother and if so when you became so aware

I became aware after the contract was signed

1

I wish to also document my concern about the unprofessional manner in which the committee continues to seek information on this matter from employees of NIB that report to me In several circumstances there is documented communication written by the Committees Chainnan copying members of the Board and certain members of staff but excluding me I question the purpose of this method of communication and express my discomfort at these events and their contribution to the continued unprofessional ism emanating from The Contracts and Tenders Committee of The Board of Directors

Nonetheless I will continue to attempt to foster a spirit of amicability professionalism and respect with regard to the conduct of my duties as Director of NIB and will discharge my duties accordingly It is my desire that there will be no recurrence of the behaviour displayed at the last meeting I am always prepared to accept and follow the guidelines of the Board of Directors and Chairman and will continue to perform my duties in a professional matter

Finally Mr Wells is the professional at NIB responsible for the IT project and all other decisions incidental to it including the lease of the Sandy Port Apartment therefore in the event that you have need for any further information with regard to this matter these inquiries should be addressed to him In the meantime I enclose to complete this file the communication written by Gail Carey on Monday March 12010 the Executed Lease Document the Payment Request dated February 26 2010 and the communication between Chairman Greg Moss and Raymond Wells on October 92012

Algernon Cargill Director

Cc The Hon Perry G Christie Prime Minister and Minister of Finance The Hon Phillip Brave Davis Deputy Prime Minister The Hon Shane Gibson Minister of Labour and National Insurance Mr Bernard Evans Deputy Chairman The National Insurance Board Mr Patrick Ward Former Chainnan The National Insurance Board

3

Information Technology Dept

INTERNAL

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Algernon Cargill Director

FROM Mr Raymond Wells Vice President Information Technology

DATE 25th February 2010

SUBJECT Accommodations for AIS Staff

AIS staff will be onsite for a period of four to six months working on the Drug Plan I

propose that we house them in a safe and less costly accommodation than that of a hotel

The places that best met the requirements for safety (gated) arid cost were Delaporte

Point and a condo at Sandyport The lease will be for a three month period initially and

on a month to month basis afterwards

I obtained quotes from both places for the three month period and they are as follows

bull Delaporte Point $450000 (all costs included)

bull Sandyport $666670 (all costs included)

I suggest that we house AIS staff at Sandyport as it is the best choice of the two options

The Sandyport residence has an additional bathroom and individual spaces that gives

each occupant more privacy and work space It also provides space to house a fourth

staff member as it becomes necessary

I seek your approval and assistance in this matter

Algernon Cargill

From Raymond Wells Sent Tuesday October 09 2012 807 PM To Shane D Algernon Cargill Subject FW Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012 Spm NIB

HQ

Minister Gibson and Director Cargill

I wish to refer you to the email sent by Chairman Moss today (along with my response) concerning a meeting he wants me to attend While I am at the Boards disposal and available to answer any questions and attend any meetings required of me I simply for personal obligations cannot attend Thursdays meeting

The Chairmans response to me is nothing short of threatening and intimidating among other things

I would respectfully like to relay that throughout my entire career I have never been anything other than a professional The significant changes I brought to NIB and the innovative implementation of information systems therein are a testament to this level of professionalism and commitment

Regards Raymond Wells Deputy Director The National Insurance BoardjVP Information Technology

From Raymond Wells Sent Tuesday October 09 2012 756 PM To G Moss Patrick Davis Cc Ernestine Kelson jayson_moxey06yahoocom harrycolliescotiabankcom shatea928yahoocom Richenda King Heather Maynard Subject RE Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012 5pm NIB HQ

Chairman Moss

Because of prior urgent arrangements which cannot be changed at this late date I will be unable to attend the meeting schedule for 11 October 2012 5 pm I am prepared to attend all meetings when requested to do so and I will answer all questions which are requested of me

I respectfully suggest the meeting be held at a more convenient time and date

Are for the specific questions below I have provided the answers and is available to discuss as stated above

bull indentification of who approved such rental and payments in respect of such rental

I Signed the lease for the apartment as part of my blanket authority from the Board for managing the Drug Plan Project and mandate for controlling costs Payments was subsequently approved by Director Cargill

bull whether you were aware that the apartment was owned by Director Cargills brother and if so when you became so aware

I became aware after the contract was signed

1

Information Technology Dept

INTERNAL

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Algernon Cargill Director

FROM Mr Raymond Wells Vice President Information Technology

DATE 25th February 2010

SUBJECT Accommodations for AIS Staff

AIS staff will be onsite for a period of four to six months working on the Drug Plan I

propose that we house them in a safe and less costly accommodation than that of a hotel

The places that best met the requirements for safety (gated) arid cost were Delaporte

Point and a condo at Sandyport The lease will be for a three month period initially and

on a month to month basis afterwards

I obtained quotes from both places for the three month period and they are as follows

bull Delaporte Point $450000 (all costs included)

bull Sandyport $666670 (all costs included)

I suggest that we house AIS staff at Sandyport as it is the best choice of the two options

The Sandyport residence has an additional bathroom and individual spaces that gives

each occupant more privacy and work space It also provides space to house a fourth

staff member as it becomes necessary

I seek your approval and assistance in this matter

Algernon Cargill

From Raymond Wells Sent Tuesday October 09 2012 807 PM To Shane D Algernon Cargill Subject FW Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012 Spm NIB

HQ

Minister Gibson and Director Cargill

I wish to refer you to the email sent by Chairman Moss today (along with my response) concerning a meeting he wants me to attend While I am at the Boards disposal and available to answer any questions and attend any meetings required of me I simply for personal obligations cannot attend Thursdays meeting

The Chairmans response to me is nothing short of threatening and intimidating among other things

I would respectfully like to relay that throughout my entire career I have never been anything other than a professional The significant changes I brought to NIB and the innovative implementation of information systems therein are a testament to this level of professionalism and commitment

Regards Raymond Wells Deputy Director The National Insurance BoardjVP Information Technology

From Raymond Wells Sent Tuesday October 09 2012 756 PM To G Moss Patrick Davis Cc Ernestine Kelson jayson_moxey06yahoocom harrycolliescotiabankcom shatea928yahoocom Richenda King Heather Maynard Subject RE Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012 5pm NIB HQ

Chairman Moss

Because of prior urgent arrangements which cannot be changed at this late date I will be unable to attend the meeting schedule for 11 October 2012 5 pm I am prepared to attend all meetings when requested to do so and I will answer all questions which are requested of me

I respectfully suggest the meeting be held at a more convenient time and date

Are for the specific questions below I have provided the answers and is available to discuss as stated above

bull indentification of who approved such rental and payments in respect of such rental

I Signed the lease for the apartment as part of my blanket authority from the Board for managing the Drug Plan Project and mandate for controlling costs Payments was subsequently approved by Director Cargill

bull whether you were aware that the apartment was owned by Director Cargills brother and if so when you became so aware

I became aware after the contract was signed

1

Algernon Cargill

From Raymond Wells Sent Tuesday October 09 2012 807 PM To Shane D Algernon Cargill Subject FW Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012 Spm NIB

HQ

Minister Gibson and Director Cargill

I wish to refer you to the email sent by Chairman Moss today (along with my response) concerning a meeting he wants me to attend While I am at the Boards disposal and available to answer any questions and attend any meetings required of me I simply for personal obligations cannot attend Thursdays meeting

The Chairmans response to me is nothing short of threatening and intimidating among other things

I would respectfully like to relay that throughout my entire career I have never been anything other than a professional The significant changes I brought to NIB and the innovative implementation of information systems therein are a testament to this level of professionalism and commitment

Regards Raymond Wells Deputy Director The National Insurance BoardjVP Information Technology

From Raymond Wells Sent Tuesday October 09 2012 756 PM To G Moss Patrick Davis Cc Ernestine Kelson jayson_moxey06yahoocom harrycolliescotiabankcom shatea928yahoocom Richenda King Heather Maynard Subject RE Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012 5pm NIB HQ

Chairman Moss

Because of prior urgent arrangements which cannot be changed at this late date I will be unable to attend the meeting schedule for 11 October 2012 5 pm I am prepared to attend all meetings when requested to do so and I will answer all questions which are requested of me

I respectfully suggest the meeting be held at a more convenient time and date

Are for the specific questions below I have provided the answers and is available to discuss as stated above

bull indentification of who approved such rental and payments in respect of such rental

I Signed the lease for the apartment as part of my blanket authority from the Board for managing the Drug Plan Project and mandate for controlling costs Payments was subsequently approved by Director Cargill

bull whether you were aware that the apartment was owned by Director Cargills brother and if so when you became so aware

I became aware after the contract was signed

1

bull whether Director Cargill was aware of such rental and if so when he became so aware

Director Cargill became aware after the contract was signed It was at that this pOint he disclosed and sought clarification on the way forward from the then Chairman in my presence as it related to the contract Approval to continue was granted by the then Chairman

bull the basis of the authority upon which you executed the contract for such rental

I was mandated by the Board to find suitable accommodations for the AIS team so as to control the quickly rising project costs

bull the reasoning for approving such rental in comparison to other available rental opportunities

Knowing AIS would require suitable accommodations (for which NIB was required to pay) for its staff and there would be a significant amount of persons joining the installation team during various stages of the rollout we sought to find a suitable apartment A 3 bedroom with 3 bathrooms was deemed suitable in a secured area with utilities and the like included This apartment met aU of the requirements

bull the time frame for which such rental continued

Approx 17 months

bull the present state of account in respect of such rental

During the AIS stay there was an altercation some ofAlS guests that caused damages to the Apt I was advised that the deposit was used to cover costs

Regards Raymond Wells Deputy Director The National Insurance BoardVP Information Technology

From G Moss fmailtogkmbarcayahoocoml Sent Tuesday October 092012456 PM To Patrick Davis Raymond Wells Cc Ernestine Kelson iayson mQXey06yahoocom harrycofliescotiabankcom shatea928yahoocom Richenda King Heather Maynard Subject RE Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012 5pm NIB HQ

Mr Wells

Out of office for what purpose

I recall that you recently returned from vacation and wish to be clear that your attendance at the meeting on Thursday of the Contracts and Tenders Meeting is mandatory

In the event that you have any other obligation within NIB which would interfere with your ability to attend that meeting please immediately advise and I will see to any such obligation being waived In the event of any other personal obligation being the cause of your inability to attend I expect and require that you immediately reschedule such personal obligation

Subject to any clarification or addition which Director Davis may wish to make let me be clear that your attendance at the said meeting shall be to discuss the factual circumstances surrounding the rental of a Sandyport apartment by NIB from Jesel Car Rental Company in 2010 As it turns out the apartment was rented from Director Cargills brother although he was not named on the rental document as having been the Landlord The Committee shall require your responses as to the factual matrix surrounding such rental including but not limited to the following

2

bull indentification of who approved such rental and payments in respect of such rental bull whether you were aware that the apartment was owned by Director Cargills brother and if so when you became

so aware bull whether Director Cargill was aware of such rental and if so when he became so aware bull the basis of the authority upon which you executed the contract for such rental bull the reasoning for approving such rental in comparison to other available rental opportunities bull the time frame for which such rental continued bull the present state of account in respect of such rental

Any refusal or failure by you to attend this meeting of the Committee and to provide comprehensive answers to those questions will be viewed as an act of insubordination on your part

Please confirm that you will be in attendance

Regards

Gregory K Moss Chairman of the Board NIB

--- On Tue 10912 Raymond Wells ltRWellsnib-bahamascomgtwrote

From Raymond Wells ltRWellsnib-bahamascomgt Subject RE Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012 5pm NIB HQ To Patrick Davis ltmundon325livecomgt Cc Gregory Moss ltgkmbarcayahoocomgt Ernestine Kelson ltEKelsonnib-bahamascomgt jayson moxey06yahoocom ltjayson moxey06yahoocomgt harrycolliescotiabankcom ltharrycolliescotiabankcomgt shatea928yahoocom ltshatea928yahoocomgt Date Tuesday October 9 2012 417 PM

Good Afternoon Mr Davis

I will be happy to meet with the Contract and Tenders Committee however I will be out of office on Thursday Additionally (and respectfully) it would be helpful if you can provide me with the matters you would like to discuss so that I can be prepared

Thanks

Regards

Raymond Wells

Deputy Director The National Insurance BoardNP Information Technology

From Patrick Davis [mailtomundon325livecom) Sent Tuesday October 0920121058 AM To Raymond Wells

3

Cc Gregory Moss Ernestine Kelson jayson moxey06yahoocom harrycolliescotiabankcom shatea928yahoocom Subject Contracts and Tenders Committee Meeting Thursday 11th October 2012 5pm NIB HQ

Good morning Mr Wells

The Contracts and Tenders Committee requests your presence at the above captioned meeting to review and discuss matters pertaining to the various contracts relative to your Department

Kindly confirm you attendance via email to myself or The Board Secretary

Regards

PLD

Disclaimer Link - Click to view httpwwwnib-bahamascomEmail-Discaimer

4

Inf ormation Technologv Dept

INTERNAL

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Raymond Wells Vice PRsident Information Technology

Gail Carey ~ FROM

DATE

SUBJECTz ClarIOcatl8 ofHouln CIIolce at SMldyPert fer A1S Staff

On a point ofclarification in accordance with the oontract betweenNm and AlS NIB is

required to provide 8OOO1DIIlCdation for AlS staffwhen they are in the Bahamas to

providescrvices for the National Prescription Drug Plan (NPDP)

For cOst~ffoctiveness it was decided thatin the lool-termhotel ~II1DlOdations would

be too expensive Therefore it was determinod that a housc~ condominium or an

~ in ~ pted area orcommunity would be ~tter options for safety reasons After

checldngseveral houses in the Cable Beach area which were not considered because they

were they were not up to standard rr settledon an apartmenUn SandyPOl1for four (4)

reBSOns

1 Safety

2 The apartment layout surpassed the other choices (offering more privacy)

3 The ~twas able to accommodate allmiddotofthe perSons from AlS traveliing to

the Bahamas for tbepurpose ~NPDP IT implementation

4 Tbeotllet p~surve~were CQmparabIein cost

Itwas after IT deCided to go with the SandyPort option that it w~ discQvered that the

apartment was owned by the Directors brotherMr Godwin Cargill Given the fact that

we needed to move the tWo (2) staffmembers from AISmiddotout ofthe Hilton urgently it was

decidCd to move forward Wi1h the request for the apartment

During the search and decision to utilize the apartmeIlt in SandyPort itshould be clear

that the Director bad no~nce or kDowledge in the procurement oftlieapartment h

was only after themiddotdaCiaionmiddotwas made aiJd at the point 9ffinBl-pprovaltbat the ~ of

ownership wasbrouahttO his attention i ~ tbat this cliuifies any potential

~

JE8-EL CAR COMPANY LTDbull POBOX SP-60156

124 GOVERNORS CAY SANDYPORT NASSAU BAHAMAS

PH 317-15511357-4636

RINTAL AGRDMENT

Teaamts NllIDe The Natiooal Insurance Board

Address POBox N-7S08

Coatad Name Name Gail Carey-Ga) Phone 242-302-]747

WI1NESSETH that the 18lldIord hereby leases to the tenant the pmnises known as 124A Governors Cay amp Sandyport Drive situated at Sandyport Nassau Bahamas

LEASE TO COMMENCE March 1st 2010 _

DURATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT Short Term(Lass than 12 mths)

TERMlNAT[ON DATE Either party can tennin8tc this agreement by giving the other party 30 days written notice

MONIHLY RENTAL 5666670 (Such payment to be made on the 151

day ofeach month)

SECURITY DEPOSIT S 500000 (To be paid on the execution oftbis lease and to be reimbursed to the Tenant on the expiration ofthis agreement)

SMOJJne V 9UU8G

- -

JE8-EL CAR COMPANY LTDbull POBOX SP-60156

124 GOVERNORS CAY SANDYPORT NASSAU BAHAMAS

PH 317-15511357-4636

RINTAL AGRDMENT

Teaamts NllIDe The Natiooal Insurance Board

Address POBox N-7S08

Coatad Name Name Gail Carey-Ga) Phone 242-302-]747

WI1NESSETH that the 18lldIord hereby leases to the tenant the pmnises known as 124A Governors Cay amp Sandyport Drive situated at Sandyport Nassau Bahamas

LEASE TO COMMENCE March 1st 2010 _

DURATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT Short Term(Lass than 12 mths)

TERMlNAT[ON DATE Either party can tennin8tc this agreement by giving the other party 30 days written notice

MONIHLY RENTAL 5666670 (Such payment to be made on the 151

day ofeach month)

SECURITY DEPOSIT S 500000 (To be paid on the execution oftbis lease and to be reimbursed to the Tenant on the expiration ofthis agreement)

SMOJJne V 9UU8G

- -

-~-====----------- ------ ---- - - --shy ~ _1 1 middot~- middotmiddot

shy ~

The TENANT covenants and agrees as follows

1 To pay the Landlord the above monthly rental amount on or before the due date dming the term ofthis lease agreement

2 The Landlord shall pay all utilities including Electrical Power Water Phone (local dialing only tenant shall be responsible for any long distance calls made) Cable TV (basic Only) Internet Services and Housekeeping Services (once per week on Fridays only)

3 The Tenant will report to the Landlord any apparent damage to the property to avoid fin1her deterioration and the Tenant will be liable for any damages All damages during this short tenn lease will be repaired or replace by the landlord and deducted from the secmity deposit

4 The Tenant is responsible for all personal belongings because the Landlord is not liable for any damages to the Tenants belongings including furniture

5 To permit the Landlord upon their giving reasonable notice with or without workmen or others and with or without tools or appliances of any sort to enter upon the demised premises and to view the condition thereof and make alterations or repairs asthe Landlord deems to be necessary

6 Not to move from the demised premises any part ofthe demised furniture (which includes a Washer Dryer Refrigerator Oven Cook top Microwave Wine Cooler 50 Flat Screen TV 48 Flat Screen TV 32 Flat Screen TV (2) 20 Flat Front TVs Central Air Conditioning Units and Gas Tank) and the efforts provided by the Landlord but to preserve the same in the present condition and to replace with articles ofthe same sort and value ofall such parts ofthe demised fwniture and effects as shall be broken damaged or destroyed ofat the opinion of the Landlord to pay for all such articles at their full price

7 Pets not allowed as Tenants 8 The Landlord shall have and can exercise the right to re~enter and repossess the

premises ifany part ofthe said rent whether fonnally demanded or not shall be TWENTY ONE DAYS IN ARREARS or should the Tenant fail to observe the agreed stipulations ofthe lease

9 fu case ofdamage to privately owned possessions through Fire Hurricane or any inevitable accident the Landlord will not assume liability

(J)Vfu-rtfr 41~ItL6J RDAflO TENANTS NAME (PRINT) SIGN

LANDLORD NAME (PRINT)

THIS LEASE MADE THE__l=s-t_--DAY OF -M=arch---_---2=01=O

PATRICK WARD

October 11 2012

Mr Algernon Cargill Director National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Cargill

Re Sandy Port Apartment -Jes E1 Car Ltd

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 9th October 2012 in connection with the above

I would confirm that your recounting of the facts as it relates to your personal disclosure to me and subsequent disclosure to the former Prime Minister accords with my own recollection of the events in question

In addition to what you have said it is also my recollection that this matter was discussed in some detail with the current Minister with responsibility for NIB during the briefinghandover exercise which we jointly conducted not long after his appointment

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance in this matter

NASSAU BAHAMAS PO BOX CB-13888 PHONE (242) 327 3197

• Cargill Comprehensive Response to GT Forensic Report
• Enclosure 1
• Enclosure 2 - Part 1
• Enclosure 2 - Part 2
• Enclosure 3 to 5
• Enclosure 6
• Enclosure 7
• Enclosure 8

PATRICK WARD

October 11 2012

Mr Algernon Cargill Director National Insurance Board Nassau Bahamas

Dear Mr Cargill

Re Sandy Port Apartment -Jes E1 Car Ltd

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 9th October 2012 in connection with the above

I would confirm that your recounting of the facts as it relates to your personal disclosure to me and subsequent disclosure to the former Prime Minister accords with my own recollection of the events in question

In addition to what you have said it is also my recollection that this matter was discussed in some detail with the current Minister with responsibility for NIB during the briefinghandover exercise which we jointly conducted not long after his appointment

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance in this matter

NASSAU BAHAMAS PO BOX CB-13888 PHONE (242) 327 3197

• Cargill Comprehensive Response to GT Forensic Report
• Enclosure 1
• Enclosure 2 - Part 1
• Enclosure 2 - Part 2
• Enclosure 3 to 5
• Enclosure 6
• Enclosure 7
• Enclosure 8