Let me be clear from the start, Mr. Editor. This column is not about Andre Curtis. It is about faith-based tourism, and the Progressive Labour Party Government, and on what I now term faith-based finance. No assembly is required. Follow the directions, people. Connect the dots

Dot No. 1

The Department of Tourism (DOT) signed an agreement with Harvest Investment Holding Limited, trading as Faith-Based Tourism (FBT), for the period April 12, 2007 through March 31, 2008 and, for the sum of $400,000 FBT was contracted to produce a minimum of ten faith-based events and deliver a minimum total of 2,200 visitors for Bermuda.

The contract was never put out to tender. DOT said it wasn't necessary. They claimed the FBT initiative was a sponsored event and therefore not subject to the Government rules of tendering. The Auditor General didn't agree. He regarded the DOT's claim as "after-the-fact rationalisation" and an attempt to put form over substance.

Dot No. 2

Cabinet approved the project on April 10, 2007. According to the Auditor General, they went along with a recommendation that the contract not be put out to tender because of "the tremendous success of faith-based events during 2006, and the desire to capitalise on the obvious strength of the proprietor of FBT".

This decision puts the lie to the claim the $400,000 was event sponsorship.

Dot No. 3

The written contract – which was vetted by the Attorney General's Chambers, as it should have been – did not, according to the Auditor General, adequately cover accountability, fiduciary and custodial responsibilities. "All payments under the $400,000 contract, except for the final payment of $20,000, were to be made only on the provision of written expectations and intentions, well before the delivery of the contracted services", the Auditor General reported.

"This", he added, "is contrary to the responsibility of civil servants to protect public assets".

Dot No. 4

Cabinet approved the contract on April 10, 2007, but an initial payment of $25,000 was made on April 4, 2007 – six days earlier.

An authorised purchase order was subsequently drawn to support and facilitate payment, but the fact is that a $25,000 advance was made without the requisite authorisation i.e. Cabinet approval.

"This", the Auditor General opined, "is a breakdown in the Ministry's control system."

Dot No. 5

A condition for making the first payment of $191,000 was proof of an insurance policy and a detailed listing of ten events, dates, venues, and targeted visitors for each event. The Auditor General in his review found that this condition was not met. There was no evidence of receipt of any insurance policy, no evidence of a forecast of targeted visitors, and the overview only accounted for eight of the ten events. Nonetheless, the $25,000 payment was made on April 4 followed by a further payment of $166,000 on April 13, 2007.

Dot No. 6

The Auditor General never found any clear evidence that FBT produced ten faith-based events and 2,200 visitors to Bermuda.

The contract had called for a report upon completion of the ten events showing:

• the targeted number of visitors was achieved;

• a financial statement detailing monies generated and expenses incurred;

• a summary of the benefits generated for Bermuda; and

• copies of media coverage, locally and abroad.

But, reported the Auditor General: "No such report was received".

Dot No. 7

The Opposition United Bermuda Party asked a series of parliamentary questions in June 2008, three months after the contract had come to an end, trying to find out how much money had been spent and how many visitors had come as a result.

We were told that a total of $345,200 had been paid to fund the faith-based tourism initiative for the financial year 2007/2008. We were given a list of 15 events which had received funding, which totalled $208,089.02 along with a $29,250 payment to the Bermuda Hotel Association "(Rent for Harvest Investments)". That still left over $100,000 for which there was no formal accounting or explanation.

The total number of visitors the events brought in: 482. I kid you not. This is the record. You can look it up for yourself. The answers are recorded in the minutes of the House of Assembly for Friday, June 20, 2008.

Dot No. 8

The Auditor General was also interested in knowing where the money went. He was able to obtain a copy of the April 2007 bank statement for Harvest Investment Holdings Ltd. Of the $191,000 that had been advanced, he found what he regarded as the following "questionable account transfers":

? $38,089 worth of payments to Andre Curtis

? $11,906 applied to an Andre Curtis credit card

? a $20,264 payment to Vision Construction; and,

4 a $30,000 payment to the Emerald Financial group.

All of the above were the reported findings of the Auditor General in his last Report on the Accounts of the Bermuda Government for the financial year 2007/2008, which were tabled in the House on the Hill earlier this year.

It is no wonder then that the Auditor General concluded his review by recommending a police investigation for what he regarded on its face as "a questionable use of funds". He thought too that there had been "an inexcusable lack of care" by DOT in the oversight and administration of this particular contract and called on the Head of the Civil Service to take appropriate action as well.

One last dot

The Auditor General's report once again underscores the need for such periodic reviews to bring about greater transparency and accountability. But the pity is that these reviews are done, and acted upon, so long after the fact. The Office of the Auditor General does its job. Parliament must do its job too, and this is where reform comes in, which includes among other things a more active, robust Public Accounts Committee, meeting as it should in the sunshine of public scrutiny, investigating and probing Government expenditure on an ongoing basis.

But changing the system is one thing, Mr. Editor. Changing the Government is the other.

Comments? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm.