Heavy on promises, light on numbers
Originally presented as an effort to touch the souls of Bermudians while boosting the Island’s dwindling arrivals figures, Faith Based Tourism ended up being a story of very few tourists but plenty of controversy. Tim Smith and Elizabeth Roberts report on the initiative that’s incurred the wrath of two Auditors GeneralAs far as the jury was concerned, it was Andre Curtis’ cookie jar to use how he deemed fit.But after Mr Curtis was able to spend tens of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars on personal transactions without committing a crime, Auditor General Heather Matthews would like to know why nobody is now facing consequences.Accused of stealing Faith Based Tourism cash, Mr Curtis was cleared of theft after his lawyer Mark Pettingill argued that money had actually been presented to him by Government. How could anyone steal something that had been handed to them on a plate?Like her predecessor Larry Dennis, Ms Matthews’ attention is focused on how Mr Curtis was awarded the cash in the first place and the lack of oversight into how he spent it.Almost from day one, Premier Ewart Brown’s FBT initiative faced continuous criticism, with former United Bermuda Party leader Wayne Furbert repeatedly claiming it was a scam for Dr Brown to reward his political campaign manager Mr Curtis with Government cash. Dr Brown and Mr Curtis both denied the allegation.Last year, Mr Dennis released a damning report questioning why Government failed to tender the $400,000 FBT contract before awarding it to Mr Curtis, and then failed to ensure he abided by its terms.A condition of Mr Curtis’ first payment of $191,000 was to provide a detailed list of ten faith-based events which would bring 2,200 tourists to the Island in 2007/08, and an accompanying insurance policy. Mr Dennis said Mr Curtis fell well short of this condition, only submitting plans for seven events. Tourism could give no evidence to show Mr Curtis had provided any forecasts of targeted numbers of visitors, nor any insurance policies.Nonetheless, he was awarded that $191,000 in two payments: $25,000 on April 4, and a further $166,000 on April 13.Asked whether anybody could be held accountable for the fact Mr Curtis was given cash despite failing to meet the criteria for the disbursement of funds, Ms Matthews told The Royal Gazette: “Yes, of course, Financial Instructions is very clear on this point.”She said section 2.9 of Financial Instructions, pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Public Treasury (Administration and Payments) Act 1969, provides the authority for a government officer to be surcharged on the direction of the Minister of Finance if that officer “is or was responsible for any improper payment of public money or for any payment of money which is not duly vouched”.That Act states if the officer in question does not provide a satisfactory explanation, he or she can be surcharged a sum equivalent to the amount they allowed to be improperly paid.According to Mr Dennis’ report, the initial payment of $25,000 to Mr Curtis on April 4, 2007, was requested and approved by then-Tourism Permanent Secretary Marc Telemaque. Mr Dennis said Cabinet approved that contract on April 10, with a further $166,000 paid out on April 13.Mr Dennis pointed to section 9.3.1 of Financial Instructions, which states: “Contracts totalling over $50,000 (including those with multiple payments) must be submitted to Cabinet for approval before acceptance.”The former Auditor said he challenged Mr Telemaque’s successor as Permanent Secretary, Cherie-Lynn Whitter, on the fact the initial $25,000 payment was made six days before Cabinet approved the contract.Ms Whitter told him that $25,000 was “subject to the production of a purchase order and said funds were later deducted from the initial payment to Harvest. The initial disbursement of $25,000 was requested and approved by the then-Permanent Secretary”.Mr Dennis argued this missed the point, saying: “Although an authorised purchase order was produced to support and facilitate the payment, the $25,000 payment was made in advance of the required level of authorisation, ie Cabinet approval. This is a breakdown in the Ministry’s control system.”During Mr Curtis’ trial, Ms Whitter, at that time Director of Tourism, recalled a directive from Mr Telemaque to release some funding to Mr Curtis before the contract was signed.She agreed with Mr Pettingill’s suggestion that an e-mail was sent by the Permanent Secretary stating: “Can you mock up a contract of sorts to make this happen yesterday.”Once the contract was secured and the cash was paid to Mr Curtis, the funds were spent questionably, according to Mr Dennis’ report. He said $38,000 went on payments to Andre Curtis, $11,000 to Andre Curtis’ credit card, $20,000 to Andre Curtis’ company Vision Construction, and $30,000 to Emerald Financial Group. Mr Dennis recommended a police investigation, which resulted in criminal charges being brought.Forensic accountant Todd Boyd told the trial that, of the $345,000 Mr Curtis received in total for FBT, he spent just $215,000 on FBT events; spending the remaining $130,000 on personal expenses and construction projects that had nothing to do with FBT.Although Mr Curtis was ultimately cleared of theft, Ms Matthews argues the police investigation was justified.“The public has a right to know how public funds are being spent,” she said.Chief Justice Richard Ground told the panel who decided Mr Curtis was not guilty of the criminal charges he faced: “This was a case that obviously cried out for resolution by a jury and I thank you for participating.”Another of Mr Dennis’ recommendations was for the head of the Civil Service to make a complaint against public officers who failed to carry out their oversight responsibilities of the FBT project. Ms Matthews said she is not aware of such a complaint being made but that there is still scope to do so. Donald Scott is the head of the Civil Service. The level of success or failure of the FBT initiative remains in dispute, with then-Tourism Minister Dr Brown and Mr Curtis providing widely varying figures of faith-based arrivals throughout 2007/08.Halfway through that fiscal year, Mr Curtis claimed 1,500 tourists had already been attracted to FBT events, meaning he was already past halfway to his target. By the end of the year, Dr Brown had downsized the total figure to 482. Mr Furbert argued the true statistic, discounting those who’d been paid to perform, was probably about ten. The number of events that took place is also unclear. Dr Brown, Mr Curtis and Junior Minister Marc Bean all claimed an event called ‘Weekend Fit for a King’ had been held under the FBT umbrella, with Dr Brown saying it attracted 26 visitors towards the FBT tally.But despite numerous requests at that time, nobody was able to say what Weekend Fit for a King actually was.Jasmin Smith, who also acted as Tourism Director at one point during the period in question, told the trial Mr Curtis had in fact “got rid” of it. The pastor who was being celebrated by the event told the trial it was private and nothing to do with FBT.Dr Brown had claimed FBT’s most popular event was a conference organised by Women of Vision Empowering a Nation (WOVEN), which he said brought 170 FBT visitors to the Island.However, Ms Smith told the trial of a memorable “difference of opinion” between Mr Curtis and WOVEN, which resulted in sponsorship being withdrawn. It’s understood WOVEN told Mr Curtis they didn’t want any of his help long before the event took place. Other events on official FBT lists provided by Tourism included ‘Mount Zion quiz’ and ‘Intercessory Prayer’ which both yielded zero tourists.Asked if she attended any FBT events or if Mr Curtis ever gave supporting paperwork, Ms Smith told the court: “I never attended no events and he never showed me no papers.”Meanwhile performers claimed Mr Curtis refused to pay them after they came to the Island as part of FBT.Bishop John Francis, who flew from the UK to be the star act at the National Stadium’s Joint Worship Service, and Pastor Jamal Bryant, who came from Baltimore to perform at a St Paul AME Church event, both said they were left out of pocket.Ms Matthews’ concerns about the Ministry of Tourism and Transport are not restricted to FBT; in October 2010 she released a damning report into the way Dr Brown’s Ministry handled the TCD emissions centres development. Critics had already accused Dr Brown of cronyism for awarding that contract to a company partly owned by his close friend Dennis Correia, without putting it out to tender; Ms Matthews later condemned the lack of oversight as the costs leaped from $5.3 million to $15.2 million.Another Auditor General report is said to be imminent into the Heritage Wharf project, also in Dr Brown’s Ministry, which cost $21 million more than expected. Governor Sir Richard Gozney, who called the FBT case a “sorry tale”, has previously pointed to relaxed financial controls granted to Tourism and Transport as “special concessions” during Dr Brown’s tenure; Premier and Finance Minister Paula Cox has since ended that practice. Ms Matthews said yesterday: “All departments and Ministries are mandated to follow Financial Instructions. There should be no exceptions.”Last month, Ms Matthews revealed she is setting up a Special Investigations team to speed up reports into public projects, including those under Dr Brown’s administration. Giving an update on that proposal, she said: “Steps have been taken to move forward with the Performance Audit/Special Reports section.“We cannot ensure that specific behaviours will not be repeated, however with the establishment of the special unit we expect to bring such instances to light earlier so that immediate corrective action can be taken.”