Dr Jean Dixon.

Tyrone Reid, Enterprise Reporter

WHILE CHARGES have been levied against former Junior Minister Kern Spencer and two others for their involvement in the Cuban light-bulb scandal, critics have questioned the role of Dr Jean Dixon, permanent secretary in the Energy Ministry.

She kept her silence. Not any-more.

In an interview with The Sunday Gleaner, Dixon eschews personal blame for the ill-fated project, pointing out that generally, she had cautioned against political contamination of the affairs of the ministry.

Not my signature

"As permanent secretary, I was never asked to sign, approve or review any invoice, documentation or request for payment under the light-bulb project, and I did not sign any documentation releasing any money," she discloses. The exception was one payment for then Junior Minister Spencer.

"The ministry paid the sum of $21,293.25 for hotel accommodation in Montego Bay in relation to the making of arrangements for the housing of the Cubans in the western parishes. This was the sole payment made by the ministry under this project," Dixon informs The Sunday Gleaner via email. She explains that hotel accommodation for the minister and his driver was a regular payment that would have been made as long as they were engaged in transacting the country's business.

"It is difficult," she reasons, "to accept blame when I am attached to the administrative arm of the ministry and not the political directorate. And the ministry's administrative arm was not involved in the conceptualisation of the project; but I do wish that the project was conceptualised differently."

Political project

According to the permanent secretary, it was her understanding that the project had been conceptualised by the political directorate, to be undertaken by the members of parliament and paid for out of their Social and Economic Support Programme funds. She explains further that if the energy-saving venture had been conceptualised as a government of Jamaica project, then the administrative officers of the ministry would have had direct involvement in its conceptualisation and implementation.

Had that been the case, she argues, the project would have been undertaken in accordance with the Government's established guidelines. "Like the other projects directed by the administrative staff of the ministry, it would have been performed in accordance with best practices," she states.

When asked if she agreed with the public perception that the permanent secretary, as the accounting officer, must accept some of the blame for whatever irregularities occur in the ministry, affiliated agencies and companies, Dixon points out that sometimes permanent secretaries are bypassed, and, in such circumstances, it would be unfair to lay the blame at the feet of the accounting officer.

"Where there is direct communication between the political directorate of the ministry and officers of the several agencies and departments under its portfolio, to the exclusion of the permanent secretary, whether deliberately or by oversight, it is extremely harsh to blame the permanent secretary for actions taken by the political directorate or the officers as a result of such communication."

She adds: "I am on record as objecting and cautioning against such communication or conduct in relation to the affairs of the ministry."

Regularisation attempt

While Dixon is able to point out that attempts were made to regularise the procurement procedures, she declines to divulge any further details at this time as the matter is to be heard in court. "It would not be proper for me to comment further on this point, at this time," she says.

When asked how she would respond to critics who have questioned her competence because of a history of scandals that have plagued the ministry where she sits as permanent secretary, Dixon replies that she has been efficient in the exercise of her duty as an accounting officer.

"In all cases where matters, relating to the affairs of the ministry, came to my attention, the matters were effectively dealt with or the appropriate recommendations made, in keeping with my responsibilities as accounting officer," she discloses. "I appreciate, however, that this may not be known by the members of the public, as I am obliged to conduct the affairs of the ministry with the requisite degree of confidentiality," Dixon adds.

Bulb timeline

Feb 15, 2006 - Cuban light-bulb pilot project launched.

Jul 3, 2006 - Kern Spencer takes control of second phase of project.

Sept 1, 2007 - Spencer approves millions of dollars in outstanding invoices.

Oct 23, 2007 - Clive Mullings raises red flag and calls in the OCG and the AG.

Nov 6, 2007 - Spencer weeps as Mullings calls in Fraud Squad and DPP.

Jan 15, 2008 - AG report tabled in Parliament.

Feb 5, 2008 - Damning contractor general's report tabled in Parliament.

Feb 7, 2008 - PNP executive signals distancing from Spencer.

Feb 14, 2008 - Spencer signals intention to seek leave from Parliament.

Feb 21, 2008 - Spencer questioned by Fraud Squad detectives.

Feb 26, 2008 - Spencer arrested.

Feb 28, 2008 - Rodney Chin released from jail on bail.

Feb 29,2008 - Spencer released on $10M bail after four days in jail.