20141118, Sixteenth Report - JSC Group 2 - National Commission … · 2014-11-18 · EXECUTIVE...
Transcript of 20141118, Sixteenth Report - JSC Group 2 - National Commission … · 2014-11-18 · EXECUTIVE...
i
INQUIRY INTO THE
ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS
OF THE
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SELF HELP LIMITED
PAPER NO: /2014 PARL NO. 14/6/13
Ordered to be printed with the Minutes of
Proceedings
and Notes of Evidence
PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
Fifth Session (2014/2015)
TENTH PARLIAMENT
SIXTEENTH REPORT
of the Joint Select Committee
Appointed to inquire into and report on Government Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
ii
An electronic copy of this report can be found on the Parliament website: www.ttparliament.orghttp://www.ttparliament.org/committee_business.php?mid=19&id=149&pid=25 The Joint Select Committee appointed to inquire into and report to Parliament on Ministries (Group 2), and on the Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises falling under their purview Contact the Committee’s Secretariat
Telephone: 624-7275 Extensions 2277/2288/2282, Fax: 625-4672 Email: [email protected]
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
iii
Sixteenth Report
Of the
Joint Select Committee Appointed To Inquire Into And
Report On Government Ministries, Statutory
Authorities And State Enterprises (Group 2)
ON THE
The Administration and Operations of the
National Commission for Self Help Limited
Date Laid: HoR: _____________________ Senate: ___________________
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
iv
THE COMMITTEE
Dr. Victor Wheeler
CHAIRMAN
Mr. David Small Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie VICE-CHAIRMAN MEMBER
.
Dr. Tim Gopeesingh, MP Mr. Clifton De Coteau, MP Dr. Lester Henry MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER
Mr. Collin Partap, MP Mr. Kevin Ramnarine Dr. Lincoln Douglas, MP MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER
Mrs. Raziah Ahmed Ms. Alicia Hospedales, MP Mr. Fitzgerald Jeffrey, MP
MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
v
Committee Mandate and Establishment
1.1. Section 66 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago declares, that not later than three
months after the first meeting of the House of Representatives, the Parliament shall appoint Joint
Select Committees to inquire into and report to both Houses in respect of Government Ministries,
Municipal Corporations, Statutory Authorities, State Enterprises and Service Commissions, in relation
to their administration, the manner of exercise of their powers, their methods of functioning and any
criteria adopted by them in the exercise of their powers and functions.
1.2. Motions related to this purpose were passed in the House of Representatives and Senate on
September 17, 2010 and October 12, 2010, respectively, and thereby established, inter alia, the Joint
Select Committee to inquire into and report to Parliament on Ministries with responsibility for
the business set out in the Schedule as Group 2, and on the Statutory Authorities and State
Enterprises falling under their purview with regard to their administration, the manner of
exercise of their powers, their methods of functioning and any criteria adopted by them in the
exercise of their powers and functions.
1.3. The entities which fall under the purview of the Committee is attached as Appendix I.
Powers of the Joint Select Committee
1.4. Standing Orders 71B of the Senate and 101 of the House of Representatives delineate the core powers of the Committee which include inter alia:
a. to review and report on all matters relating to:
the statute law relating to the Ministry/body assigned to it;
the program and policy objectives of the Ministry/Body and its effectiveness in the
implementation of same;
other matters relating to the management , organization of the ministry or body, as the
Committee deems it fit;
b. to send for persons, papers and records;
c. to adjourn from place to place;
d. to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not otherwise readily
available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee’s order of reference;
and
e. to communicate with any other Committee of Parliament on matters of common interest.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
vi
Membership
1.5 The Committee comprises the following members:
1. Dr. Victor Wheeler* - Chairman
2. Mr. David Small* - Vice-Chairman
3. Dr. Tim Gopeesingh, MP - Member
4. Mr. Clifton De Coteau, MP - Member
5. Dr. Lincoln Douglas, MP - Member
6. Mr. Collin Partap, MP - Member
7. Ms. Alicia Hospedales, MP - Member
8. Mr. Fitzgerald Jeffrey, MP - Member
9. Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie - Member
10. Mr. Kevin Ramnarine - Member
11. Ms. Raziah Ahmed* - Member
12. Dr. Lester Henry - Member
Secretariat Support
1.6 The following officers were assigned to assist the Committee:
o Mr. Julien Ogilvie - Secretary
o Ms. Candice Skerrette - Assistant Secretary
o Ms. Katharina Gokool - Graduate Research Assistant
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... 1
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 3
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 6
Background ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Objectives of the Inquiry ........................................................................................................................ 8
Conduct of the Inquiry ........................................................................................................................... 9
THE EVIDENCE .......................................................................................................... 10
Scope of Commission’s Mandate .......................................................................................................... 10
Organization Structure ........................................................................................................................ 10
Strategic Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Management of the Commission ......................................................................................................... 11
Office Locations and Accommodation ................................................................................................. 12
Internal Control Systems ..................................................................................................................... 12
Services offered by the Commission..................................................................................................... 12
Priorization of the Disbursement of Grants ........................................................................................ 16
Procedure for the Dispersion of Grants ............................................................................................... 17
Managing and Monitoring of Field Work ……………………………………………..…………………………………….. 18
Commission's Relationship with Suppliers ……………………………………………………………..……………………. 19
Commission's Relationship with Other Agencies ………………………………………………………………..……….. 21
Value for Money and Project Management …………………………………………………………………………..……… 21
Achievements of the Commission ………………………………………………………………………………………….……… 22
Challenges of the Commission ………………………………………………………………………………………….…………… 22
Impact of the Reassignment of the Commission ………………………………………………..…………………………. 25
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................ 26
APPENDIX I ............................................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX II .............................................................................................................. 47
APPENDIX III ............................................................................................................. 61
APPENDIX IV ............................................................................................................ 97
APPENDIX V ............................................................................................................. 99
APPENDIX VI ........................................................................................................... 101
APPENDIX VII………………………………………………………………………………………………………....110
APPENDIX VIII…………………………………………………………………………………………………………113
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
viii
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
1
ABBREVIATIONS
CID COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
CEO CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ERRAG EMERGENCY RELIEF AND RECONSTRUCTION GRANT
HDC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LCHG LOW COST HOUSING GRANT
MoCD MINSTRY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MoFE MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND THE ECONOMY
MoLA MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
MoLG MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
MoPA MINISTRY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
MoPSD MINISTRY OF THE PEOPLE AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
MoPU MINISTRY OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
MRRG MINOR REPAIRS AND RECONSTRUCTION GRANT
NCSHL NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SELF HELP LIMITED
NHA NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
NSDP NATIONAL SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
IDF INFRASTRUCTRUAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
T&TEC TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ELECTRICITY COMMISSION
THA TOBAGO HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
WASA WATER AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
2
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
DETAILS PAGE NO.
1. No. of Beneficiaries who have accessed grants disbursed during the period October 1st, 2007 to May 31st, 2013
21
2. Allocations to the NCSHL for the fiscal years 2009-2013 (inclusive of Administrative Expenditure)
22
3. Seven (7) New Divisions 101
4. Twenty (20) New Positons 106
5. Summary of Approved Not Yet Implemented CID Files 110
6. Summary of Approved Not Yet Implemented MRRG Files 113
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the Committee’s first report on the National Commission for Self-Help Limited
(NCSHL). At its twenty-fourth meeting held on June 21, 2013, the Committee resolved to
pursue an inquiry into the NCSHL. The main objectives of the inquiry were as follows:
i. to gain an appreciation of the scope of the mandate of NCSHL when it was
established as a State owned company in 1997;
ii. to ascertain how projects are chosen and prioritized in terms of disbursement of
grants;
iii. to understand the process for obtaining assistance from the company;
iv. to gain insight into the relationship between the Commission and the suppliers of
material/resources for projects;
v. to be informed of the measures that are in place to ensure that the Commission is
able to manage its affairs efficiently;
vi. to determine what is considered an emergency case with respect to grants and how
such cases are dealt with; and
vii. to identify the organization’s achievements and challenges.
The Committee obtained both oral and written evidence based on the objectives listed above.
After analysing the evidence (summaried in section 3 of this report), we concluded that there
were certain issues concerning the operations of the NCSHL that had to be urgently addressed
as a means of enhancing the efficiency of the Commission and to increase the impact the
Commission has on families and communities. Some of the issues flagged by the committee
were:
a. a lack of sufficient financial resources to meet the increasing demand for grants;
b. the significant lag time between the approval of an application and the actual
disbursement of funds from the Commission;
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
4
c. an inadequate number of Field Officers compounded with insufficient vehicles and
equipment to conduct field visits;
d. there was a need to further develop its internal capacity;
e. the potentially high level of disenchanted amongst applicants who have been waiting
for over 5 years for action to be taken on their application;
f. delays in the payment of suppliers due to inadequate records to justify payment.
As a consequence, we formulated appropriate recommendations to address these issues.
Section 4 comprises the findings and recommendations of the
Committee. The Committee also noted some commendable aspects of the Commission’s
operations which included:
a. the role played by the Commission in nurturing and developing a culture of self-help and self-
reliance within communities. We thought that developing such a mind-set would
positively impact the psyche of citizens and encourage them to take ownership of their
communities;
b. NCHSL has adopted a more transparent and methodical approach to the prioritization
of the award of grants through the introduction of the MRRG Evaluation Form
complemented by a score sheet;
c. the introduction of a system that allows clients to a track their application. NCSHL
now issues a receipt detailing the file number and the project officer assigned to attend
to their applications.
d. the Commission’s approach in dealing with emergency cases. The Committee noted
that an attempt is made to attend to these cases within a 24 hour period and a grant
for materials can be issued immediately, subject to the applicant/beneficiary being able
to confirm the estimated cost of the required work material;
e. a new organizational structure was expected to be approved by Cabinet since the end
of 2013 and therefore should be in the implementation phase at this time.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
5
We anticipate that the Parliament, the NCSHL, the Ministry of Local Government and other
stakeholders would give due consideration to the findings and recommendations contained in
this Report with a view to enhancing the operations of this essential community oriented
organization. The Committee looks forward to reviewing the Minister’s response to this
Report, which becomes due, 60 days after it is presented to the Houses of Parliament.
Chairman of the Committee
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
6
2. INTRODUCTION
Background
1.1. The National Commission for Self Help Limited (NCSHL) which was previously
under the aegis of the Ministry of Community Development is now under the Ministry of
Local Government (MoLG). It was established by Cabinet on April 7, 1987 and was registered
as a state-owned Company on April 14, 1997. The idea of “Self Help” was to encourage
communities to rely on the resources available to them in addressing infrastructural needs
through the use of available man power resources and financing (available at the community
level), supplemented by technical services and materials from the Government.
1.2. The NCSHL was created to give priority assistance to senior citizens, victims of natural
disasters, fire, low income single parent households, socially displaced families and persons on
public assistance or disability grants. However, the Commission is dedicated to serving all the
citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. The Commission’s projects throughout the years have been
successful in ameliorating hardships, especially in rural communities and some urban
settlements.
1.3. Type of projects which are funded by NCSHL:
a. Water b. Roads c. Electricity d. Drains e. Bridges f. Community Centres g. Homes for the Aged h. Houses of Worship i. Schools j. Environment k. Recreation facilities
1.4. The Committee selected the Commission for examination since it considered the
Commission as an important entity with the responsibility of channeling resources into
communities for the purpose of enhancing the quality of life of residents, whilst simultaneously
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
7
engendering a spirit of self-reliance and self-determination. In determining the objectives of the
inquiry, the Committee noted that in recent times, there have been reports in the media which
suggested that shortcomings existed in the administration of the Commission regarding the timely
payment of monies owed to hardware dealers who supply material for projects. The Commission’s
response was that this delay in payments to suppliers was as a result of the administrative
procedures which must be followed for the approval of payments. Furthermore, there was also a
concern that Self- Help grants were not being used for the purposes for which they were
awarded.
1.5. In light of the foregoing, the Committee resolved that it should undertake an
examination of the administration and operations of the NCSHL.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
8
Objectives of the Inquiry
1.6. At a meeting held on June 21, 2013, the Committee agreed that the following will
comprise the objectives of the inquiry:
I. to gain an appreciation of the scope of the mandate of NCSHL when it was formed
as a State owned company in 1997;
II. to determine the impact of the shift from being under the aegis of the Ministry of
Community Development to the Ministry of Local Government – institutional
knowledge, records, disruption of work schedules and attending to applicants;
III. to ascertain how projects are chosen and prioritized in terms of disbursement of grants
– regional location, means test, based on need;
IV. to understand the process for obtaining assistance from the company;
V. to gain insight into the relationship between the Commission and the suppliers of
material/resources for projects;
VI. to be informed of the measures that are in place to ensure that the Commission is able
to manage its affairs efficiently, particularly with respect to the application of standards
associated with value for money and project management;
VII. to determine what is considered an emergency case with respect to grants and how are
such cases dealt with; and
VIII. to identify the organization’s achievements and challenges.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
9
Conduct of the Inquiry
2.7. On November 08, 2013 a public hearing was held with representatives of the MoLG
and the NCSHL at which time the Committee questioned the officials on matters relative to
the objectives of the inquiry. Prior to the public hearing, notice was given as to the general
objectives of the inquiry and in response, written submissions were received from the NCSHL.
These responses provided a frame of reference for the oral examination of the representatives
of the Commission during the public hearing.
2.8. The MoLG and the NCSHL were represented at the meeting of Friday November 08,
2013 by:
1. Mr. Surujdeo Mangaroo - Chairman, NCSHL
2. Mr. Reynold Baldeosingh - Chief Executive Officer, NCSHL
3. Ms. Kousil Nandee - Project Accountant, NCSHL
4. Ms. Petronilla Basdeo - Director, NCSHL
5. Ms. Katrina Mooleedhar - Planning Officer I, MoLG
6. Ms. Meena Abiraj - Accounting Executive II, MoLG
2.9. Subsequent to the public hearing of November 08, 2013, additional information was
requested from the NCSHL. The requested information was submitted under letter dated
January 03, 2014.
2.10. The draft of this Report was considered and approved with amendments at the
meeting of the Committee held on October 10, 2014.
2.11. The Minutes of the Meeting during which the public hearing was held are attached
as Appendix II and the Verbatim Notes as Appendix III.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
10
3. THE EVIDENCE
SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION’S MANDATE
3.1.1 The National Commission for Self-Help Limited is governed by a Memorandum of
Association and Articles of Association which outlines the mandate of the Company. The
articles provide that the Commission was established inter alia:-
“To nurture and develop a culture of self-help and self-reliance within communities throughout
Trinidad and Tobago”;
“To facilitate the promotion, design and implementation of self-help projects throughout Trinidad and
Tobago”;
To stimulate the development of individual and community industry, enterprise and cooperative efforts”;
“To receive proposals for the undertaking of self-help projects and activities and to evaluate, identify
and clarify projects for implementation;”
“To assist in the identification of resources needed to undertake self-help activities and to facilitate the
sourcing and mobilization of such resources as may be needed for the implementation of self-help
projects;”
“To provide assistance, including financial, material and technical contributions to individuals,
community and other organizations for self-help projects on a matching grant basis or on such other
basis as may be determined by the company;”
3.1.2 The Committee was informed that although there has been no change in the mandate
of the Commission since its inception, the scope of its activities has been altered/expanded to
adapt to the needs of communities. For example, eight (8) years ago, communities were
mandated to contribute approximately 5% of cost for the supply of household connections
(pipes/wires etc.) however, presently, the Commission funds the total cost of water and
electricity projects.
3.1.3 The Committee was informed that at its conception in 1987, the activities of the
Commission involved partnering with communities. However, the activities of the
Commission have evolved to include the contracting of services since voluntary help from
communities has been decreasing over the years. Moreover, since 2010, the current Board
members have been limiting the amount of contracted services and have been implementing
many more community infrastructural development projects and involving community
members to engage in the deployment of the projects. Currently, community based or “Self-
Help” work accounts for close to 40 to 45 percent of the Commission’s funds.
ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE
3.2.1 The NCSHL has been operating with an organisational structure that dates back to
1997 which provides for the employment of 54 positions (see current organisation chart at
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
11
Appendix IV) of which less than 40 positions are actually filled. Therefore, the Commission
has been supplementing its human resource requirements through the use of OJTs because
the Commission lacked the funding to hire new staff.
3.2.2. The Commission has developed a new organisational structure consisting of several
new divisions (See Appendix V) with a total of ninety-five (95) employees. Details of
functions of the Units at the National Commission for Self Help Limited are also outlined in
Appendix VI.
3.2.3. It was noted that the proposed new Organisational Structure takes into consideration
the staffing needs of the Company’s three (3) offices in Port of Spain, San Fernando and
Tobago. The proposal has been approved by the Public Management Consulting Division
PMCD and was expected to be submitted to the Cabinet by the end of 2013.
STRATEGIC PLAN
3.3.1. The Committee was informed that a draft Strategic Plan was expected to be ratified at
a Board Retreat scheduled for January 10th to 12th 2014 and would be submitted by January
17th 2014.
MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMISSION
3.4.1. Prior to February, 2011, the Commission was operating without a CEO and as a
consequence, the functions of the CEO were performed by the Project Manager. The current
CEO was appointed in October 2010 which coincided with the appointment of the
Commission’s Board of Directors.
3.4.2. In an effort to enhance its functional capacity, the Commission recruited a Human
Resource Officer and an Internal Auditor during the period 2011/2012.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
12
OFFICE LOCATIONS AND ACCOMMODATION
3.5.1. The Commission pays monthly rental fees for the lease of the following three office
locations:
i. The North Office, located at Lassalle Court, #75 Abercromby Street, Port-Of-Spain
(9,000 square footage);
ii. The South Office, located at Birjah Building, Independence Avenue, San Fernando
(1376 square footage); and
iii. The Tobago Office located at #91 Barrinton’s Court, Bonaccord, Tobago (790 square
footage).
3.5.2. However, the Company is seeking new accommodation and has written to the Ministry
of Public Administration (MoPA) requesting assistance. It was submitted that due to
inadequate funding, the Commission was unable to establish satellite offices in rural areas.
Nevertheless, the Commission has sought the assistance of Members of Parliament (MPs) and
their Constituency Offices to act as a conduit for the submission of applications received from
residents in these areas.
INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEMS
3.6.1. The Committee learned that the Commission had one Internal Auditor and an OJT
who assists the Auditor who in addition to other duties, is responsible for monitoring the
output of field officers and for ensuring that field visits occur. It was reported that the method
for monitoring the output of Field Officers involved reviewing photographs from site visits
and making telephone calls to officers in the field to confirm these site visits.
3.6.2. The Committee was informed that the Commission was given approval to recruit an
External Auditor in 2012. The previous External Auditor having served for ten (10) years. The
Commission’s accounts for the year 2012 are the most recent accounts to be audited. The
Committee was also informed that the Management Letter to authorize the release of the audit
for the year 2012 had not been signed by the External Auditor and was expected to be
submitted by January 17th, 2014.
SERVICES OFFERED BY THE COMMISSION
Community Infrastructural Development (CID) Projects
3.7.1. The Commission participates in community projects through its Community
Infrastructural Development (CID) Grants, which are primarily concerned with the
repairing of roads, bridges, drains and other community infrastructure such as orphan roads,
churches, temples and mosques. The targeted beneficiaries of the Commission’s interventions
are mainly low-income communities in Trinidad and Tobago that lack basic infrastructural
amenities. For example, the Commission has assisted in funding the improvement of Police
Service Youth clubs; Sporting clubs, Pan Theatres as well as activity centres for youths.
3.7.2. With regards to the criteria for obtaining the grant, any community group/NGO
exploring the option of improving its standard of living can approach the NCSHL for funding
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
13
through the CID Program. However the project must benefit a minimum of five (5)
households. The main determinant when choosing a community to receive the CID Grant is
that it must be willing to put out “sweat equity”.
3.7.3. The NCSHL requires the residents to supply the manual labour for projects such as
retaining walls, drains and steps, provided that there is enough skilled labor available within
the community. Projects are directly supervised by NCSHL Project Officers. However, where
voluntary skilled labor is unavailable, the NCSHL will appoint a contractor to implement the
job.
3.7.4. In addition, applicants are required to do the following:
i. appoint a Coordinator who acts as a “Liaison Officer” for the community group;
ii. Complete the CID Application Form (blue application form) and submit it to the
NCSHL Office together with the material requirements for the project.
iii. when the completed form is submitted to the NCSHL’s Office, a site visit will be
scheduled by the respective Project Officer for the district;
iv. once a recommendation is made by the Project Officer, the application is submitted
to the Approvals Committee of the NCSHL;
v. after approval is granted, the Project Officer advises the Coordinator of the date of
implementation;
vi. the project is monitored by the Project Officer until the approved funding is utilized.
A Summary of Approved but not yet implemented CID files is at Appendix VII.
Water and Electricity Projects
3.7.4. Presently, the Commission funds the total cost of water and electricity projects. The
applications for water and electricity have however been generally less as most people seek
assistance instead through the National Social Development Programme (NSDP) of the
Ministry of Public Utilities (MoPU). As a result, the Commission has received only two (2)
applications for water projects that have qualified for intervention by the Commission since
February 2011. However, the Commission maintained that it continues to accept applications
for water and electricity projects.
3.7.5. With regards to water projects, the Commission liaises with the Water and Sewerage
Authority (WASA) for an approved water design, if this is not received; WASA will not
connect the applicant to their main water line. On the other hand, for approved water designs
the Community is provided with a backhoe to dig a trench, sand to fill the trench, pipe lines,
and fittings to build the water supply. Similarly, for electricity projects, the Commission
communicates with the Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission (T&TEC). In some
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
14
instances, requests cannot be fulfilled immediately because other tasks involved are often
required to obtain electricity.
3.7.6. In addition, to funding water and electricity projects, the Company is involved in the
distribution of the following Grants:
1. Minor Repair and Renovation Grant (MRRG); and
2. Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Assistance Grant (ERRAG).
Minor Repair and Renovation Grant (MRRG)
3.7.7. The Minor Repair and Renovation Grant (MRRG) targets families with a combined
monthly income of less than $3000. The grant is in the sum of $15,000 (formerly $10,000).
Applicants can submit their application either directly or through a Member of Parliament
(MP).
3.7.8. The criteria which an applicant must satisfy are as follows:
a. qualifying applicants must fit into the category of senior citizens, single parents,
physically challenged, low income families, families affected by fire, windstorm and
any other natural disaster;
b. Income Eligibility: $3,000.00 per household;
c. The dwelling house must be owner occupied (proof to be provided);
d. land tenancy on which the house is located must be freehold, leasehold or rented
(proof to be provided);
e. funding is not provided directly to the affected family but is issued in the form of a
Purchase Order to the respective supplier.
3.7.9. The Commission issued approximately 1,942 MRRG approvals during the period
October 1, 2011 and September 31, 2012. A further 3,366 approvals remain to be processed
and/or funded. It was submitted that Cabinet has limited the MRRG facility to 30% of the
Commission’s annual allocation for projects. The number of grants issued per constituency
over the past five (5) years with regards to the MRRG is outlined in Appendix VIII.
Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Assistance Grants (ERRAG)
3.7.10. The Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Assistance Grant (ERRAG) was
established on July 7th, 2011 to assist families who suffer from the effects of fires and natural
disasters. The ERRAG differs to the Low Cost House Repair Grant (see below).
3.7.11. The Committee was informed that emergency cases are categorised as those that entail
a disaster such as where a family was displaced as a result of the roof of their home being
blown off in a wind storm or their house destroyed by fire, earthquakes or land slippage.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
15
3.7.12. The approach used for dealing with possible emergency cases involves a visit by the
Commission within a 24 hour period to assess the nature of the emergency and once the
qualifying criteria are satisfied, a grant for materials is issued immediately.
3.7.13. However, in some cases, an applicant may not be in a position to confirm the materials
required for the repairs and may require additional time to determine the same. Likewise, in
other cases, where applicants need to consult with a builder or may need to acquire a new site
or demolish the structure, a delay in the process may occur. However, applicants who are able
to produce an invoice for a supplier may receive the required materials within forty-eight (48)
hours.
3.7.14. The Committee also noted that in some cases, the affected family is issued a tarpaulin
to assist in protecting their belongings until the repairs can be completed.
3.7.15. ERRAG are valued up to $25,000 and funding is issued on a case by case basis. It was
noted that this amount was considerably higher in comparison to $15,000 allotted through the
MRRG. Although the ERRAG has a higher value, applicants seldom require the maximum
amount to attend to their situation but in an scenario where a house is completely destroyed
by a fire or landslip, the maximum amount may be able to accommodate the cost of the
extensive damages.
3.7.16. During the hearing, a member of the Committee highlighted that there were two (2)
emergency cases which have been pending for approximately two (2) years notwithstanding
consistent reporting of the incidents and the cases being highlighted in the media.
Low Cost House Grant (LCHG)
3.7.17. The Committee was informed that despite the availability of the above mentioned
grants, it was the experience of the NCSHL that the facilities are not always sufficient to meet
the needs of the very severe cases of abject poverty and cases of very extensive damages caused
by floods, fire, landslides and other disasters. Additionally, some beneficiaries are not able to
effect the repairs or construction required neither can they afford the cost of services of a
builder to provide the required services.
3.7.18. As a consequence, the Low Cost Housing Grant (LCHG) was established via
Cabinet approval in April, 2013 as a one-off initiative to provide for a maximum of $75, 000
for materials only and $45, 000 to be paid to a builder in cases where the cost of labour cannot
be met by the beneficiary.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
16
3.7.19. The LCHG was instituted for the construction of one hundred (100) houses. As such,
each Member of Parliament was notified to submit two (2) requests for housing to the CEO
of NCSHL.
3.7.20. It was noted that in submission of the draft Cabinet Note for this grant, it was
proposed that labour would be supplied by the applicant or through CBOs and NGOs,
therefore the grant would entail $75,000 for materials only. However the grant was not
implemented as intended. Nonetheless, the CEO has been directed by the Board to write to
the Cabinet requesting the continuation of LCHG, this decision was confirmed at a Board
meeting held on November 6th, 2013
3.7.21. With regard to the application process for the LCHG in Tobago, there is no formal
arrangement for the house grants and applications go through the similar process as is done
in Trinidad.
PRIORITIZATION OF THE DISBURSEMENT OF GRANTS
3.8.1 The Committee was informed that with regards to the CID Programme, projects are
selected based on the Community’s need and the availability of funding. In determining which
community should receive a CID Grant, the community must be willing to provide the
necessary labour (or “sweat equity”) for the project.
3.8.2 As a result, most applications are received from low income communities rather than
middle to high income communities. As well, the dispersion of funding differs amongst
communities as this is done according to the infrastructural needs of a particular community.
Additionally, due to their topography, some communities are more prone to infrastructural
inadequacies and/or adverse seasonal and atmospheric conditions.
3.8.3 Similarly, grants disbursed under the MRRG programme gives priority to the most
vulnerable applicant for example senior citizens and fire victims. The Committee was
informed that a quantitative approach was established together with the introduction of a
MRRG Evaluation Form in October 2012.
Introduction of a score sheet to assess applicants
3.8.4 A system of using a score sheet was introduced in 2011 in place of the former system
that gave priority to the aging population but did not provide young persons who may be
similarly challenged with an equal opportunity to qualify.
3.8.5 The score sheet takes into consideration the following indicators:
income, liabilities and expenditure of the household;
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
17
the number of dependents in the household;
the condition of the structure;
the health of applicant;
whether or not the applicant is differently abled;
whether or not they have received a grant by another agency and whether they have
indoor plumbing.
3.8.6 It was noted that other factors may hinder an application’s success for example,
applicants with income generating operations on their property are not permitted grants. This
includes parlours, barbershops, hairdressing salons as well as landlords seeking assistance in
upgrading their property for their tenants and HDC/NHA key holders who apply to the
NCSHL for assistance to renovate or for expansions. Such applicants are not given priority or
are not permitted grants unless there living circumstances qualify as an emergency. For
instance, in the past, the Commission has granted assistance to persons who reside in HDC
settlements who required emergency repairs. The Committee also noted that applicants who
are squatters are not administered grants.
3.8.7 Accordingly, the NCSHL requires applicants to also submit the land tax receipt, a copy
of the deed or the Certificate of Comfort and in the absence of these (as in cases found in
Tobago) a sworn affidavit informing of the person’s residence at the location unencumbered
for a period of years, is accepted since applicants on low income may not have land tenure.
PROCEDURE FOR DISPERSION OF GRANTS
3.9.1 The following steps are involved in the distribution of grants:
A Project Officer visits and appraises each request for assistance for the following grants:
Minor Repairs and Reconstruction Grant (MRRG) (green application form)
Emergency Repairs and Reconstruction Assistance Grant (ERRAG); and
Low Cost Housing Grant (LCHG)
The Project Officer makes a proposal/recommendation to the Chief Executive Officer
based on the following conditions:
- poverty;
- living conditions;
- income;
- urgency; and so on.
The application is further reviewed by the Senior Project Officer who endorses and/or
amends the Project Officer’s recommendation and submits it to the Chief Executive
Officer for approval by the Board of Directors
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
18
Confirming the receipt of applications for grants in the NCSHL
3.9.2 To confirm receipt of an application, the Commission has implemented a system of
generating and issuing applicants with a receipt containing the file number and the name of
the Project Officer assigned to the case. The applications are then processed electronically and
placed on a database.
The Approval Process for Grants
3.9.3 The approval process involves obtaining the Board’s approval. However, the funding
even for approved application is not always available. Therefore, approved files are those that
are awaiting funding and does not mean that the grants are ready to be collected. (See
Appendix VII) As such, pending approved applications are dealt with according to date.
Currently, the Commission is treating with those approved cases in 2010 thereafter application
approved in 2011, 2012 and 2013 will be dealt with in that order.
NCSHL Bar Coding System
3.9.4 The Committee was advised that a Bar Coding System will soon be implemented
subject to the release of funding in fiscal 2014, to facilitate the tracking of forms and grants.
The system is estimated to cost approximately $20,000 and requires that electronic documents
be converted from Microsoft Word Excel to Access. It was also noted that the implementation
of the bar coding system will necessitate staff to be trained to operationalize the system.
MANAGING AND MONITORING OF FIELD WORK
3.10.1. The Committee was informed that the Senior Project Officer manages and monitors
the work of field officers. The Senior Projects Officer is responsible for allocating projects for
visits and allocating a time frame for feedback. The number of applicants visited is determined
by the number of applicants and the workload of the Project Officers.
3.10.2. The mechanism for monitoring field activities is output based, where the Senior
Project Officer measures the number of field visits that were conducted per day. Additionally,
there is an audit procedure which entails internal checks to confirm whether Field Officers
actually visited. A questionnaire directed at applicants must also be completed during the visit
and this provides feedback on whether the applicants were satisfied with the responses from
the Commission.
3.10.3. However, officials contended that the ideal mechanism for monitoring field activity is
through the use of electronic resources so that information regarding the visits can be logged
in instantly and in so doing, the Commission will be able to measure the performance of field
officers rather than output.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
19
THE COMMISSION’S RELATIONSHIP WITH SUPPLIERS
Payments to suppliers
3.11.1. It was submitted, that the NCSHL has a credit arrangement with its approved suppliers
which is regulated by Suppliers’ acceptance of authorised Purchase Orders and by their
agreement to honour the following terms and conditions:
i. to deliver items listed in accordance to specifications outlined in the Purchase Order
with the mutual understanding that the items adheres to industry standards;
ii. Purchase Orders are only valid until date listed (3 months from date issued) and
delivery must be completed within that period;
iii. suppliers fulfillment of purchase orders represents acceptance of details and
conditions including cost;
iv. invoices must only be submitted for payment after all materials have been delivered.
3.11.2. Accordingly, the process used to pay suppliers involves the following:
i. Suppliers are to Invoice the NCSHL after delivery is completed in full;
ii. Copies of Invoices are forwarded to the relative Project Officers to conduct site visits
and to verify that the items delivered were in accordance with those listed on the
supporting purchase order;
iii. A review of payment documents and file is completed by a Senior Project Officer and
authorization to proceed with payment granted;
iv. A review of payment documents, file and authorization is completed by the Internal
Auditor and authorization to proceed with payment confirmed;
v. Final review of file completed before cheque is prepared and issued.
3.11.3. Notwithstanding this process, the Committee was informed that the NCSHL has
previous claims dating back to several years and amounting to approximately $200,000 which
are outstanding for payment.
3.11.4. Additionally, it was noted that several claims are not supported by a Purchase Order
and arose as a result of instances where suppliers were requested by verbal order to deliver
material. This practice has resulted in the Commission being listed on Credit Chex based on a
supplier fulfilling a verbal order.
3.11.5. Consequently, the Committee was informed that some 12 cases of this nature were
being considered by an Internal Audit Committee of the Board. The 12 cases matters concern
suppliers with Purchase Orders issued during the period 2005 to 2009 who have not yet
received their payments although there is evidence to prove that the material were received, it
appeared that the appropriate procedures were not followed.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
20
Criteria and procedures used to select suppliers
3.11.6. It was noted that previously when approval to implement a project was granted, an
applicant was required to use the three (3) quote system which involved an applicant
submitting to the Commission three (3) quotes from three (3) different hardwares for materials
required for the project. As a result, applicants who are generally low income homeowners
often sought quotes from the most economical suppliers.
3.11.7. However, it was noted that the more economical suppliers did not wish to do business
with the Commission because:
a. there is the risk of delays in deliveries (in some cases two (2) weeks after an order was
made); or
b. there may be incremental deliveries (where grant applicants may request that the
material be delivered in parts) that may result in tardiness in completing work which
in turn can bring about a delay in the payments owed to the supplier.
3.11.8. Additionally, in some cases, suppliers may have supplied material on credit to up to
five (5) applicants. As a result, it was difficult to reduce the average waiting time for paying
suppliers less than two (2) months. Therefore, it was suggested that the more feasible approach
was to utilize a large supplier, who may be able to extend more credit facilities and give the
best prices to the applicant.
3.11.9. Officials of NCSHL also informed the Committee that the application form for the
MRRG also known as a ”green form” now has an attached list of requirements entailing a list
of the materials and no longer necessitates three (3) quotes. The attached list became necessary
as quoted prices became void in instances where applicants had to wait approximately two (2)
years for a grant and also to discourage persons from paying for a quotation to submit to the
Commission which in some cases ranged between $20 and $150. As result, the Commission
has ceased doing business with several hardwares that have been charging a fee for quotations
and who have been sending invoices without delivery.
3.11.10. Additionally, the NCSHL held a symposium in the Preysal Community Centre where
approximately 150 suppliers were invited to submit prices for goods and for the common
materials for the subsequent six (6) months. However, the Committee was informed that the
response from the suppliers was poor particularly because suppliers in the construction
industry could not provide a constant price list for the ensuing six (6) months. Nonetheless,
the Commission was able to establish a list of suppliers who are willing to collaborate with the
Commission and the Committee was assured that all MPs will be provided with the list.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
21
THE COMMISSION’S RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER AGENCIES
3.12.1. There is no formal relationship between the NCSHL and the Tobago House of
Assembly (THA). However; the members of the THA, the Chief Secretary and Councilmen
are invited to the distribution ceremonies when they are held.
3.12.2. The Commission reported that it did not have formal arrangements with the following
public bodies regarding the sharing of information about the eligibility of persons for grants:
- Division of Social Services, THA;
- HDC, Trinidad (which has a house grant);
- The Ministry of People and Social Development (MoPSD); and
- Ministry of Legal Affairs (MoLA).
3.12.3. However, the NCSHL was enthusiastic about utilizing a central database which is
being conceptualised by the MoLA. Officials contended that if this database was implemented,
it will be a useful tool to detect instances where an applicant is receiving a grant from another
state agency.
VALUE FOR MONEY AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
3.13.1. In order to ensure value for money in the quality and timeliness of the supply of
materials:
i. there must be supplier’s acceptance of Purchase Order, wherein it is mutually agreed
that goods delivered must match specification and adhere to industry standards; and
ii. delivery must be within a timely basis from receipt of Purchase Order and should not
exceed validity date.
3.13.2. Furthermore, the Committee was informed that the measures instituted by the
Commission to ensure that it is sufficiently able to manage its affairs efficiently according to
appropriate value for money and project management standards involved stringent monitoring
and evaluation of projects specifically with reference to:
a. the delivery of materials;
b. quality of work produced by contractors according to specifications outlined by the
scope of works;
c. ensuring that cost overruns are not frequent and that materials are efficiently utilized;
d. each Project Officer is assigned a district and before invoices are paid, Officers must
visit the job site to verify that materials have been delivered and that the specified
project was completed; for example where a contractor is assigned to complete a job,
sites are visited to ensure that the work is completed and contractors are paid for
materials only upon satisfaction of the work.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
22
ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
3.14.1. The Committee noted the number of projects that were supported by the Commission
during the period October 1st, 2008 to May 31st, 2013. It was reported that for this period, an
aggregate of 6,654 projects were implemented which impacted 72,014 beneficiaries. These
figures are outlined in Table 1 below:
TABLE 1
Number of beneficiaries of grants disbursed during the
period October 1st, 2007 to May 31st, 2013
Project Type No. of Projects Implemented
No. of Beneficiaries
Bridges 14 2,580 Drainage 84 2,520 MRRG 5,105 20,420
Recreation 8 240 Retaining Walls 65 1,950
Roads 126 3,780 Schools 8 540 Steps 7 210 Social 146 8,760 Water 13 390
ERRAG 1,005 30,150 Activity Center 7 210
LCHG 66 264 TOTAL 6,654 72,014
CHALLENGES FACED BY THE COMMISSION
Inadequate Funding
3.15.1. The Committee was informed that one of major challenges facing the management of
the NCSHL was the inadequacy of funding to satisfy the number of requests for assistance.
It was noted that because funds are very closely monitored to give priority to disaster projects,
less urgent requests may not get attention for a number of years.
3.15.2. The details of financial allocations made to the NCSHL for the fiscal years 2009-2013
inclusive of Administrative Expenditure are stated in Table 2 below:
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
23
TABLE 2
Allocations to the NCSHL for the fiscal years 2009-2013
(inclusive of Administrative Expenditure)
3.15.3. The Committee was informed that the allocations granted to the NCSHL deviated
drastically from the actual amount requested via its annual estimates. It was noted, that
increased funding is required to address the following areas:
1. larger accommodation for the Company’s Head Office;
2. increase in salary; as staff are still being paid salaries that were approved in 2006;
3. improved IT facilities;
4. training; and
5. purchase of heavy duty vehicles for field visits.
3.15.4. It was also highlighted that one of the major challenges faced by the Company was
balancing its project management expenses and administrative expenses to be able to operate
within the confines of the funds allocated for Infrastructure Development.
3.15.5. With regards to the NCSHL recurrent expenditure, requests for the years 2011, 2012
and 2013 were approximately $17 million to $18 million however, the Commission received
$9.3 million, $10.4 million and $10.5 million respectively, which was considerably less. The
Commission estimated that the funding requirements of the Commission was $80 million to
finance the Infrastructural Development Fund and $18 million to cover its recurrent expenses.
However, for fiscal 2013 and 2014, the Commission received $40 million and $60 million
respectively.
Backlog of grants
3.15.6. The lack of adequate funding has adversely affected the Commission’s ability to attend
to the increasing demands for its services/assistance. As a result, in 2011, the Commission had
a backlog of qualified applicants in excess of 5,000 grants.
Fiscal Year Recurrent
(Administrative)
Expenditure
$
Total Funds Allocated
$
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
7.8 Million
9 Million
9 Million
10.5 Million
9.4 Million
30 Million
30 Million
35 Million
35 Million
40 Million
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
24
3.15.7. The Committee was also informed that the backlog of application received prior to
2010 was in excess of 1,500 applications. Therefore, in an attempt to reconcile these
applications, the Commission arranged for Field Officers to revisit those applicants. This
exercise revealed that in most cases, the circumstances of those applicants had improved.
Therefore, the NCSHL took a decision to inform persons who submitted an application prior
to January 2010, to reapply as a means of determining whether these persons still had an
interest in acquiring the assistance of the Commission. Correspondence informing MPs of this
decision was also sent and similar information was also posted at the NCSHL Offices. As
such, the NCSHL no longer treats with applications received prior to January 2010 and the
Commission’s focus is now on applications made after January 2010. It was also reported that
in 2011, the Commission had the capacity to issue 1,250 grants in each financial year.
3.15.8. As at January 2014, it had the capacity to issue 2,000 minor repairs and construction
grants per annum as well as the ability to respond to the emergency grant applications
separately. However, the Committee was informed that despite an increase in its capacity to
deliver, there was still a backlog of approximately 3,000 grants.
3.15.9. It was also noted that the number of applications received annually now averages
between 1,500 and 2,000 per year.
Inadequate Resources for field exercises
3.15.10. It was noted that due to the lack of funding to hire additional staff, one (1) Field
Officer was required to conduct site visits in two (2) constituencies and one (1) Project Officer
was assigned to three (3) constituencies. The Commission is also challenged to provide
officers with appropriate handheld electronic communication devices to communicate
with the Self- Help database while on the field. The Commission is also in need of a rough
terrain vehicle to access rough terrain. At present, Field Officers use their own vehicles and
receive a travel allowance of $2,000 which is inadequate to cover the cost of monthly
instalments on a vehicle. The Committee was also informed that the Commission is unable
to establish a loan facility to purchase a car to accommodate its field work operations.
3.15.11. It was also reported that Field Officers are paid $4,000 less than Field Officers
employed by the Ministry of the People and Social Development and the Sugar Welfare
Company. The officers also receive a telephone grant ranging between $86.25 and not
exceeding $200. It was submitted that this was often insufficient to conduct operations.
Salaries of staff at the NCSHL
3.15.12. The Committee was informed that the employees were being paid 2006 salaries
because the Commission was unable to obtain the necessary increases in funding for personnel
cost and due to the absence of an approved staff establishment and Organisational Chart.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
25
3.15.13. Therefore, given the lack of adequate personnel to undertake visits and project
monitoring, Members of Parliament are requested to assist in collecting forms. Officials of the
Commission also visit all forty-one constituencies to liaise with members of the public as well
as the constituency offices.
THE IMPACT OF THE REASSIGNMENT OF THE COMMISSION TO THE
MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
3.16.1. The Committee was informed that although the removal of the Commission from
under the aegis of the Ministry of Community Development to the Ministry of Local
Government did result in some challenges. The Commission was able to address these
challenges over time as meetings were held between the Permanent Secretary, MoLG and the
CEO of the Commission to address operational and administrative issues associated with the
reassignment.
3.16.2. Meetings were also held with other senior officials of the MoLG in relation to the
procedures for the release of funds under the Recurrent Expenditure Schedule and under the
Infrastructure Development Fund (IDF). To this end, consultations were also held with the
relevant officers from the MoFE who are responsible for the disbursement of funds under
the MoCD and the MoLG.
3.16.3. The relevant changes were also made on printed stationery such as brochures and
letterheads while it was reported that signs on office buildings and vehicles are in progress.
3.16.4. Officials of the Commission could not decisively pronounce on the rationale for the
reassignment of the Commission from the Ministry of Community Development to the
Ministry of Local Government. However, it was posited that the relocation may have been
influenced by the infrastructure-type work of the Ministry and its responsibilities in relation to
Municipal Corporations.
3.16.5. Nevertheless, the Committee noted the view of officials that the NCSHL was better
aligned with the MoCD, where there existed Community Development Officers who would
assist in identifying cases for the Commission’s intervention. Therefore, the Commission
suggested that because of its Community oriented nature, the Commission complimented the
work of the MoCD.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
26
4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1. Your Committee considered the oral and written evidence received against the
established objectives of the inquiry and submits the following findings and recommendations:
OBJECTIVE 1
To gain an appreciation of the scope of the mandate of NCSHL when it was
formed as a State owned company in 1997.
4.1.1. The Committee was able to acquire an appreciation of the Commission’s mandate
through the examination of its Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association. We
were particularly interested in the Commission’s role in nurturing and developing a culture of self-
help and self-reliance. We thought that developing such a mind-set would positively impact the
psyche of citizens and encourage them to take ownership of their communities. Further, the
committee endorsed the general ethos of the Commission, since fostering a “let me help you
to help yourself” attitude would empower residents in communities in receipt of grants to
determine the type of intervention or relief they want for their community. Another positive
spin off was the harnessing of human capital and skills available within communities.
4.1.2. The evidence received did not suggest that the Commission has undertaken an
empirical assessment, that is, a social impact assessment to determine the effect of its
interventions within communities. We noted that fewer applications for water and electricity
projects are being received due to a similar service being offered through the National Social
Development Programme facility of the MoPSD. We were also mindful that there are other
public bodies/entities with a community-based mandate and therefore may be an alternative
option to the NCSHL. These include the Community Improvement Services Limited,
Municipal Corporations and the Community-Based Environmental Protection and
Enhancement Programme Company Limited (CEPEP).
4.1.3. On the other hand, we were pleased to note that compared to the other community
oriented entities, the Commission was primarily engaged in the preservation of the self-help
aspect of projects by implementing more community infrastructural projects and minimizing
the use of contractors to execute projects. Noteworthy, was the fact that community projects
account for approximately 40 to 45 per cent of the Commission’s utilization of allocated funds.
RECOMMENDATION
A. We recommend that the NCSHL continue to foster an attitude of self-help and self-
reliance by facilitating the implementation of more community infrastructural
projects as a means of preserving and fostering community involvement.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
27
OBJECTIVE 2
To determine the impact of the shift from the Ministry of Community
Development to the Ministry of Local Government
4.2.1. Evidence received suggested that the Commission was able to minimize the potentially
adverse impacts of its reassignment to the Ministry of Local Government by engaging in
consultations with the necessary ministerial officials to ensure that the transition was as
seamless as possible.
4.2.2. In addition, the Committee notes the view of NCSHL officials which suggested that
the Commission was better suited under the ambit of the MoCD, since this ministry (as its
name suggests) was engaged in community based activities relevant to the Commission. As
well, the Committee was informed that the MoCD has Community Development Officers
who formerly assisted in discovering cases for intervention.
4.2.3. Notwithstanding these administrative considerations, the Committee is of the view
that the effectiveness of the Commission is not primarily a function of its ministerial
alignment. The Commission’s line Ministry only performs an oversight role and is not directly
involved in the day-to-day management of the Commission. Therefore, the issue of Ministerial
responsibility is much less significant to the Commission’s success in comparison with the
Commission’s internal management arrangements, strategic planning activities and project
monitoring and delivery systems.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. We recommend that the Commission continue to forge collaborations and
information sharing arrangements with all Ministries and associated entities
involved in community development/improvement activities in order to avoid
duplication of efforts and to ensure that community interventions achieve
maximum impact.
B. In furtherance of this we recommend that the Commission collaborate with these
Ministries and entities to established direct lines of communication and or an inter-
departmental forum/committee as a means of facilitating information sharing and
the optimization of resources.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
28
OBJECTIVE 3
To ascertain how projects are chosen and prioritized in terms of disbursement
of grants
4.3.1. The Committee was pleased to note that there were established criteria to qualify for
the grants provided by the Commission. The Committee was also pleased to note that unlike
other agencies, where discretion is granted to political directors to determine the disbursement
of resources/benefits, it appears that the Commission has adopted a more transparent and
methodical approach to the prioritization of the award of grants through the introduction of
the MRRG Evaluation Form complemented by a score sheet.
4.3.2. In addition, we were pleased to learn that the score sheet takes into consideration a
number of social indicators such as the income, liabilities and expenditure of the applicant; the
number of dependents in the household; the condition of the house; the health of the
applicant; whether or not the applicant is differently abled; whether or not the applicant has
received a grant from another agency, among others. The use of a “means test” approach is
certainly welcomed and should be replicated by other community oriented public entities,
since the demand for grants significantly exceeds supply and there is a public perception that
public goods and services are not distributed fairly and impartially to the most needy
applicants.
4.3.3. The Committee was also encouraged by the introduction of another grant (the Low
Cost Housing Grant) for the purpose of providing low income housing solutions to persons
in abject poverty and in cases of very extensive damages caused by floods, fire, landslides and
other disasters. However, it was noted that due to a lack of sufficient funds, the Commission
was unable to expand this programme at this time. At present, the scope of the programme
is limited to the construction of one hundred (100) houses, and with only two (2) applicants
from each constituency expected to benefit.
4.3.4. Moreover, the committee was in support of the Commission’s requirement that a
community requesting a grant for a project must be willing to provide the necessary labour or
“sweat equity” in order to be awarded same. We believe that this requirement is in keeping
with the Commission’s mandate of fostering self-reliance within our nation’s communities.
4.3.5. The Committee was surprised to learn that in the past HDC/NHA key holders
received assistance to from NCSHL. The Committee endorses the Commission decision not
to issue grants to squatters.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
29
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend the extension of the Low Cost Housing Grant by another year to assist
in the rebuilding of homes lost during floods, fires, landslides and other disasters and
to target persons experiencing abject poverty; who may not qualify for a house from
the Housing Development Corporation.
OBJECTIVE 4
To understand the process for obtaining assistance from the company.
4.4.1. It was quite clear from the evidence received that a lack of financial resources has
constrained the Commission from meeting the high demand for grants. Like any other public
entity responsible for distributing scarce public resources, the Commission has had to devise
methods of prioritizing the disbursement of grants. These methods were discussed above.
However, what was of concern to the Committee was the lag time between the approval of
an application and the actual disbursement of funds from the Commission.
4.4.2. It appeared that in addition to the lack of sufficient funds, the shortage of field officers,
vehicles as well as portable communication devices has severely hindered the commission’s
ability to undertake site visits in order to approve projects proposals. This has elongated the
approval process. The average three month period for a Field Officer to conduct a visit is too
long and should be an outer limit rather than the norm. Further, it was gleaned that an informal
grouping of applicants by region is done. While this may be a more effective use of resources
and would be more convenient, the urgency of each case may differ and therefore the zoning
of applicants may result in a slower response than is required. Therefore, we contended that
the process for obtaining assistance from the Commission is too slow and tedious.
4.4.3. We also found that it was unfair to ask applicants whose application was made prior
to 2010 to have to resubmit their application, because the Commission was unable to fund
their request. While the reasoning for this approach is understood, it may lead to disenchanted
applicants who may be unwilling to cooperate with the Commission’s request to resubmit.
Alternatively, it may be argued that if an applicant was serious about receiving a grant, he/she
would continue to pursue his request no matter the cost.
4.4.4. Notwithstanding, the Commission is commended for the removal of the previous
three (3) quote system that in past has caused applicants to incur between $20 to $150 per
quotation. Allowing an applicant to attach the required list of material to his/her application
form would allow the Commission to determine the estimated cost of material. It was not
clear whether the Commission would now recommend a hardware or a supplier to an
applicant. Should this be the case, the Committee encourages the Commission to avoid any
form of favoritism in the selection of suppliers.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
30
4.4.5. The Committee also found it commendable that applicants are issued a receipt
detailing the file number and the project officer assigned to attend to their applications.
Furthermore, the Committee endorses the implementation of a bar coding system during fiscal
2013/2014 to facilitate the tracking of forms and grants.
4.4.6. Also laudable was the Commission’s approach in dealing with emergency cases where
an attempt is made to attend to these cases within a 24 hour period and a grant for materials
can be issued immediately, subject to the applicant/beneficiary being able to confirm the
estimated cost of work material. We were also pleased to learn that affected families are issued
a tarpaulin to assist in protecting their possessions until repairs can be completed
4.4.7. The Committee also observed that the Commission has an internal verification
procedure whereby information obtained from Field Officers is verified by a Project Officer,
whose information in turn is verified by a Senior Project Officer and approval is ultimately the
purview of the Board.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. We strongly recommend that the Commission continue to explore options to
reduce the time span of its approval process in order to make it more applicant friendly.
To this end, additional financial resources must be allocated for the purpose of hiring
more Field Officers and also for providing them with the required resources to execute
field activities.
B. We recommend that the Commission collaborate with Field Officers of the
Ministry of the People and Social Development, the Ministry of Community
Development and the Tobago House of Assembly (THA) to establish a referral
system, whereby Field Officers and or social workers from these ministries/bodies
would be trained to assist in determining the eligibility of an applicant for a Self-help
grant. The Field Officers of the foregoing Ministries would be required to submit a
report with a standard outline to the Commission along with photographic evidence.
This may supplement the shortage of Field Officers employed by the Commission.
This referral system should be applied primarily to cases where an application was
submitted previously and the Commission is desirous of determining whether the
applicant is still in need of assistance. The involvement of Members of Parliament in
the referral system should also be considered.
C. We also recommend that the NCSHL as a priority, take the necessary action to
implement the barcoding system before the end of fiscal 2013/2014.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
31
D. Further, we recommend that the Commission establish a website as a matter
of priority. The website should be very user friendly and should allow applicants able
to log on to view the status of their application. This website must be updated on a
regular basis. This would reduce the need for applicant to have to visit NCSHL offices
and would reduce the timeframe for an applicant to acquire an update regarding
his/her application.
E. Regarding applications prior to 2010, the Commission should consider asking
those persons to revalidate their requests for assistance to ensure that the need is still
there thus allowing them to treat with them as a priority.
OBJECTIVE 5
To gain insight into the relationship between the Commission and the suppliers
of resources for projects.
4.5.1. The Committee was pleased to be informed of the credit arrangement between the
Commission and approved suppliers appeared to be aiming at attaining value for money in
the procurement of material, since payments are made subsequent to the delivery of materials
in accordance with specifications outlined in purchase order. Additionally, the stipulated
timeframe of three (3) month within which materials must be delivered appeared to be
reasonable.
4.5.2. The Committee also endorsed the process used to pay suppliers which appeared to
provide for accountability and transparency. Conversely, the Committee noted that there are
payments owed to contractors dating back several years and which is now valued at
approximately $200,000. It was submitted that payments of these claims was delayed due to a
lack of evidence to support the claims. However, the Committee endorses the efforts of the
Commission to establish an Internal Audit Committee of the Board to investigate the twelve
(12) cases involving outstanding payments to suppliers.
4.5.3. With respect to the Commission’s ability to acquire the cooperation of suppliers, the
committee was concerned but not surprised that certain suppliers (especially those whose
prices are more economical) are unwilling to do business with the Commission for fear that
they may encounter delays in receiving payments. Furthermore, the Committee was concerned
that some suppliers who provide credit for up to some five (5) applicants also face the
challenge of not receiving their payments below two (2) months following the delivery of
material.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
32
4.5.4. On the other hand, the Commission is applauded for discontinuing business with
suppliers who charge fees for quotations as well as with those who have been submitting
invoices for payment without delivering materials to project sites. The Commission is also
commended for taking the initiative to compile a list of pre-qualified suppliers who are willing
to collaborate and for giving the assurance to the Committee that the list has been forwarded
for the attention of all MPs, who have acted as intermediaries between constituents and the
Commission.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. We recommend that as a matter of priority, the Commission review its
administrative and accounting systems to minimize delays in the process of
disbursing payments to suppliers. A fast track payment method should be
established for making payments to long-standing suppliers who have been
cooperating with the Commission for at least 5 years. This would lend additional
encouragement to suppliers to be more amendable towards doing business with
the Commission.
B. In furtherance of the first recommendation, the Commission should ensure that
suppliers are regularly updated about the status of payments owed to them.
C. Suppliers should be warned against accepting verbal or undocumented requests
for material. Likewise, beneficiaries of grants should be also warned to desist from
making verbal requests of suppliers whilst using the name of the NCSHL as a
guarantee/security.
OBJECTIVE 6
To be informed of the measures that are in place to ensure that the Commission is able
to manage its affairs efficiently
4.6.1. Similar to any other customer oriented organization, there are a number of internal and external elements/factors which impact the performance of the Commission. With regards to the internal factors, the submissions received demonstrated clearly that the Commission was still developing its internal capacity in order to effectively streamline its operations and to become a high performance and delivery oriented organization. A review of the Commission’s Gap Analysis and SWOT analysis revealed that there was a need for further capacity building in terms of a more equipped workforce (both at the operational and management levels); proper records management; more effective use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) inclusive of a website; better performance and evaluation systems among others.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
33
4.6.2. It also appeared that the Commission intends to reform its organizational structure as
a means of enhancing the efficiency of it operations. The Committee was encouraged to learn
that a new organizational structure was expected to be approved by Cabinet since the end of
2013 and therefore should be in the implementation phase at this time.
4.6.3. From an external perspective, it was obvious that the most significant setback for the
Commission was the lack of adequate funding which is ultimately the most important need of
the Commission, since it is a grant distributing entity. A more expeditious release of funds as
well as an increase in the annual budgetary allocation for both recurrent and project
expenditure were cited as essential for the Commission to effectively achieve its mandate.
4.6.4. We believe that an increase in funding for the Commission must be complimented by
the necessary improvements to the operational and managerial arrangements within the
Commission. There are ample examples which confirm that more money is not always the
solution, but rather the manner in which the money is utilised is seemingly more important.
The Commission must also develop the capacity to effectively engage communities and other
government entities involved in improving the infrastructure of communities such as CISL
and Municipal Corporations.
4.6.5. It was concluded that the major goals and critical success factors outlined in the
Commission’s submission are laudable and the Commission must work assiduously and
expeditiously towards implementing these objectives within established timeframes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. We recommend that in the absence of an immediate increase in financial
allocations, that the Commission work assiduously to administer and manage its
affairs efficiently. Individuals with institutional knowledge and expertise should be
utilized to provide training to junior staff. Several of the preceding
recommendations particularly the suggestion for more use of ICT would translate
into greater efficiency in the Commission’s operations.
B. We recommend that the Commission review its Memorandum of Association and
Articles of Association to determine whether it is plausible at this time for the
Commission to approach the Private Sector with a view to positioning itself as a
median for community interventions. The Commission should develop a private
sector engagement plan/policy and approach corporate entities who are
interesting in “giving back”: to communities by sponsoring infrastructural
projects. In all, the Commission must approach its strategic objectives with an
innovative and adaptive perspective.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
34
OBJECTIVE 7
To determine what is considered an emergency case with respect to grants and
how such cases are dealt with.
4.7.1. The Committee was satisfied that the Commission provided a specific grant to deal
with emergencies within communities which are infrastructural nature. The criteria to qualify
for this grant is also clear and unambiguous in that, the applicant must have been completely
or partially displaced by a fire, earthquake, flood, land slip or another form of natural disaster.
4.7.2. As was noted before, the Committee was pleased to learn that in some cases the
Commission was able to conduct assessments and approve the disbursement of grants within
24 hours. Also noteworthy was the fact that applicants who were able to produce an invoice
from a supplier were able to receive the required materials within forty-eight (48) hours.
4.7.3. The Committee conceded that there were factors which may delay the disbursement
of an ERRAG. These include, failure to confirm the cost and details of the required materials;
a need for time to consult with a builder or the need to acquire a new site or demolish a
structure. Additionally, the committee was concerned to learn that there were “emergency
cases” which remained unaddressed for approximately two (2) years. We consider such
situations as totally unacceptable.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. We strongly recommend that the Commission give priority to pending ‘emergency
cases” and treat with them accordingly without delay.
B. Additionally, we recommend that all applicants awaiting ERRAGs should be
notified of the status of their application. The Commission should provide these
applicants with an update on a quarterly basis until the grants are issued.
OBJECTIVE 8
To identify the organization’s achievements and challenges.
Achievements
4.8.1. The Committee acknowledges that the increase in funding for the MMR Grants and
the introduction of the ERRA grants are two major achievements of the Commission. The
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
35
Committee thought that the Commission’s record of 72,014 beneficiaries, through 6,654
projects, during the period October 1st, 2007 to May 31st, 2013 was worthy of commendation.
Table 1 above outlines the nature of these projects, which in our view was quite diverse and
would have provided valuable relief to residents of the relevant communities.
Issues and challenges
4.8.2. In addition to some of the issues highlighted previously in this section, the Committee
concluded that the Commission must also address the following issues in order to improve its
operations:
i. the need for stability and continuity at the management level;
ii. the Commission lacked sufficient financial resources to meet the increasing demand
for grants and this has resulted in backlog of approved but undistributed grants;
iii. comparatively inadequate compensation and equipment for Field Officers;
iv. lack of satellite or sub-offices in Trinidad and In Tobago;
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. We recommend that the funding of the Commission be increased in the next fiscal
year 2014/2015 so that the Commission can be more effective in providing relief to
those who are eligible.
B. We also recommend that despite its limited resources, the Commission at the very
least, should conduct telephone interviews with persons who applied for grants
prior to 2010, in an attempt to assess their current situation and to determine
whether they continue to require assistance. Telephone interviews can be used as
a form of preliminary screening for this purpose.
C. In addition, the Commission should collaborate with similar agencies to avoid
duplication in the award of grants, relief and benefits.
Your Committee respectfully submits this Report for the consideration of the Parliament.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
36
Sgd. Sgd. Dr. Victor Wheeler Mr. David Small Chairman Vice-Chairman Sgd. Sgd. Dr. Tim Gopeesingh, MP Mr. Clifton De Coteau, MP Member Member Sgd. Sgd. Mr. Kevin Ramnarine Dr. Lincoln Douglas, MP Member Member Sgd. Sgd. Ms. Alicia Hospedales, MP Mr. Collin Partap, MP Member Member Sgd. Sgd. Mr. Fitzgerald Jeffrey, MP Dr. Lester Henry Member Member Sgd. Sgd, Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie Mrs. Raziah Ahmed Member Member October 10, 2014
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
37
APPENDICES
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
38
APPENDIX I
Entities falling under the purview
of the Committee
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
39
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
40
List of Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises that fall under the
purview of this Committee
1. Local Government
STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES:
National Commission for Self-Help Limited
New City Mall
East Side Plaza
WHOLLY OWNED ENTERPRISES:
Trinidad and Tobago Solid Waste Management Company Limited
National Maintenance Training and Security Company Limited (MTS)
2. National Diversity and Social Integration
STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES:
Archaeological Committee
National Museum and Art Gallery (Royal Victoria Institute)
3. National Security
STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES:
Defence Force Commissions Board
Defence Council
Firearms Appeal Board
Strategic Services Agency
Youth Training Centre Board of Management
National Operations Centre
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
41
4. Office of the Prime Minister
STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES:
Sport and Culture Board of Management
5. People and Social Development
STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES:
Social Welfare District Boards
Trinidad and Tobago Association in Aid of the Deaf
Trinidad and Tobago Blind Welfare Association
6. Planning and Sustainable Development
STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES:
Advisory Town Planning Panel
Caribbean Industrial Research Institute (CARIRI)
Chaguaramas Development Authority
Council for Innovation and Competitiveness
Economic Development Board
National Population Council
STATE ENTERPRISES:
East Port-of-Spain Development Company Limited
7. Public Administration
WHOLLY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
42
Government Human Resources Services Limited (GHRS)
8. Public Utilities
STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES:
Regulated Industries Commission (RIC)
WHOLLY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:
The Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission (T&TEC)
The Trinidad and Tobago Postal Corporation (TTPOST)
MAJORITY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:
Telecommunications Services of Trinidad and Tobago Limited (TSTT)
9. Science and Technology
WHOLLY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:
National Information, Communication, Technology Company Limited (iGovTT)
National Institute of Higher Education (Research, Science and Technology)
Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad and Tobago (TATT)
10. Sport
STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES:
National Stadia Board of Management
Regional Complexes
Trinidad and Tobago Boxing Board of Control
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
43
WHOLLY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:
Sport Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited
11. Tertiary Education and Skills Training
STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES:
Accreditation Council of Trinidad and Tobago (ACTT)
Board of Industrial Training
College of Science, Technology and Applied Arts (COSTATT)
Eastern Caribbean Institute of Agriculture and Forestry (ECIAF)
John S. Donaldson Technical Institute
National Energy Skills Centre (NESC)
National Training Agency
San Fernando Technical Institute
Teachers Training Colleges
Trinidad and Tobago Hospitality and Tourism Institute
University of Trinidad and Tobago
University of the West Indies
- Open Campus
MAJORITY-OWNED ENTERPPRISES:
Metal Industries Company Limited (MIC)
- Government Vocational Centre
WHOLLY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:
Youth Training and Employment Partnership Programme Limited (YTEPP)
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
44
12. Tobago Development
STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES
Tobago Regional Health Authority
13. Tourism
STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES;
Zoological Society of Trinidad and Tobago
WHOLLY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:
Tourism Development Company Limited
National Academy of the Performing Arts Hotel
14. Trade, Industry, Investments and Communications
STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES:
Betting Levy Board (BLB)
Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards (TTBS)
Trinidad and Tobago Racing Authority (TTRA)
Weights and Measures
Prices Council
Board of Film Censors
WHOLLY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:
Evolving TecKnologies and Enterprise Development Company Limited (e-Teck)
Export-Import Bank of Trinidad and Tobago Limited (EXIMBANK)
Trinidad and Tobago Free Zones Company Limited (TTFZ)
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
45
Caribbean New Media Group Limited (CNMG)
Government Information Services Limited (GISL)
National Broadcasting Network (NBN)
MAJORITY-OWNED ENTERPPRISES:
Business Development Company (BDC)
Point Lisas Industrial Estate
Trinidad and Tobago Entertainment Company Limited (TTent)
Trinidad and Tobago Film Company
Creative TT Limited
INDIRECTLY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:
Caribbean Leasing Company Limited (CLCL) Subsidiary of BDC
National Flour Mills (NFM)
Premier Quality Services Limited (PQSL) Subsidiary of TTBS
15. Transport
STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES:
Airports Authority of Trinidad and Tobago
Air Transport Licensing Authority
Pilotage Authority
Port Authority of Trinidad and Tobago
Public Transport Services Corporation (PTSC)
Transport Board
WHOLLY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:
The Vehicle Maintenance Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago Limited
MAJORITY-OWNED ENTERPPRISES:
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
46
National Helicopter Company Limited
Point Lisas Port Development Corporation Limited (PLIPDECO)
MINORITY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:
LIAT (1974) Limited
16. Works and Infrastructure
WHOLLY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:
National Infrastructure Development Company Limited (NIDCO)
National Maintenance Training and Security Company (MTS)
Community Improvement Services Limited (CISL)
Palo Seco Agricultural Enterprises Limited (PSAEL)
Rural Development Company of Trinidad and Tobago (RuDeCOTT)
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
47
APPENDIX II MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
48
PRESENT
Committee Members Dr. Victor Wheeler Chairman Mr. David Small Vice-Chairman Mrs. Raziah Ahmed Member Mr. Fitzgerald Jeffrey, MP Member Ms. Alicia Hospedales, MP Member Dr. Lincoln Douglas, MP Member Dr. Lester Henry Member
Secretariat
Mrs. Jacqueline Phillips-Stoute Procedural Clerk Ms. Candice Skerrette Assistant Secretary Mr. Indar Sieunarine Parliamentary Intern
ABSENT
Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie Member (excused) Mr. Kevin Ramnarine Member (excused) Mr. Clifton De Coteau, MP Member (excused) Dr. Tim Gopeesingh, MP Member (excused) Mr. Collin Partap, MP Member
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SELF-HELP LIMITED
Mr. Surujdeo Mangaroo Chairman
Mr. Reynold Baldeosingh Chief Executive Officer Ms. Kousil Nandee Project Accountant Ms. Petronilla Basdeo Director
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-SIXTH MEETING OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE OF
PARLIAMENT APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO AND REPORT ON GOVERNMENT
MINISTRIES (GROUP 2), STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND STATE ENTERPRISES FALLING
UNDER THOSE MINISTRIES, HELD IN THE ARNOLD THOMASOS ROOM (EAST), LEVEL 6 AND
THE J. HAMILTON MAURICE ROOM, MEZZANINE FLOOR, OFFICE OF THE PARLIAMENT,
TOWER D, PORT OF SPAIN INTERNATIONAL WATERFRONT CENTRE, #1A WRIGHTSON ROAD,
PORT OF SPAIN ON
FRIDAY NOVEMBER 8, 2013 AT 9:38 A.M.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
49
Ms. Katrina Mooleedhar Planning Officer I Ms. Meena Abiraj Accounting Executive II INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.
1.2 The Chairman indicated that Mr. Ramnarine, Dr. Gopeesingh, Dr. Tewarie and Mr. De Coteau had requested to be excused from the meeting. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
25th Meeting held on October 4th, 2013.
2.1 The Committee considered the Minutes of the 25th Meeting held on October 04, 2013. 2.2 There being no proposed amendments, the motion for the confirmation of the Minutes was moved by Mr. Small and seconded by Mrs. Ahmed. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
3.1 As per item 10.4, the Chairman advised Members that a letter dated November 01, 2013 was sent to Mr. Kelvin Ramsook, General Manager of T&TEC informing him about the allegations made by Mr. Kalam Mohamed. The letter also invited Mr. Ramsook to respond to same.
3.2 As per item 10.5, Members were informed that a letter dated October 31, 2013 was sent to Mr. Anthony Hosein advising him that a copy of his letter and submissions to the Committee would be forwarded to the Equal Opportunity Commission and to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Tertiary Education and Skills Training, with a request that these authorities thoroughly investigate the matter. CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT REPORT
Draft 14th Report on the administration and operations of the Trinidad and Tobago
Police Service
4.1 The Chairman indicated that the Draft Fourteenth Report on the administration and operations of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service was circulated via email for the consideration and comments of Members on October 08, 2013. A deadline of October 18, 2013 was established for Members to provide feedback. Feedback received from the Chairman, Mr. Small and Mrs. Ahmed was incorporated into a working draft. 4.2 The Committee commenced its review of the Draft Fourteenth Report and the following amendment was made:
Insert the following new recommendation (E), page 45: - “The Committee noted that there were numerous vacancies in the various Divisions and the Committee
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
50
recommends that those units be given priority when filling vacancies and should be completed within the next financial year. The Service should implement a policy whereby vacancies are filled within a calendar year.”
4.3 Lengthy discussion ensued on the committee’s position on the issue of the shortage of Social Workers within the Police Service. During this discourse, the Committee agreed to defer further consideration of this Draft Report until the conclusion of the public hearing with the National Commission for Self-Help Limited. PRE-HEARING DISCUSSIONS RE INQUIRY INTO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SELF-HELP LIMITED (NCSHL) 5.1 Brief discussions ensued on some of the main issues to be raised during the inquiry with officials from NCSHL. 5.2 The Chairman reminded members that an Issues Paper on the submission received from the NCSHL was forwarded to members and suggested that each member pose two (2) questions each to the officials of the Commission during the first round of questioning. 5.3 The Meeting was suspended at 10:11 a.m.
[Members exited the Arnold Thomasos Room (East) and proceeded to the J. Hamilton Maurice Room]
PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SELF-HELP LIMITED (NCSHL) 6.1 The Chairman reconvened the meeting in the J. Hamilton Maurice Room at 10:17 a.m. 6.2 The Chairman welcomed officials from the NCSHL and introductions were exchanged. 6.3 Detailed below are the issues raised and the responses which emanated from the discussions with representatives of the NCSHL:
i. Opening Statements NCSHL has two (2) types of grants; the Minor Repair Reconstruction Grant (MRRG) and the Emergency Repair and Reconstruction Grants (ERRAG). The MRRG is targeted towards eligible applicants with an income of less than $3,000.00 and the ERRAG is intended to facilitate repairs as a result of natural disasters. The Commission also offers a Community Infrastructural Development (CID) Program which funds community projects.
ii. Emergency Repair and Reconstruction Grant (ERRAG)
a. The term “Emergency” was defined as a response to a disaster, inclusive of fires, storm damage and land slippages. The NCSHL responds to emergency cases by assigning officers to conduct site visits, make an assessment and issue a Grant
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
51
within twenty four (24) hours. However, there are applicants who may not be in a position to confirm the materials needed and may therefore require additional time to determine same. In other cases, applicants who are able to produce an invoice for a supplier may receive the required materials within forty-eight (48) hours. b. Officials also conveyed that the response time to applicants is dependent on the financial needs of the applicant, the nature of the material/supplies required, as well as the availability of limited NCSHL funds. The maximum value of the ERRAG is $25,000 and applicants for this fund are assessed on a needs basis.
c. Despite the higher funding limit ascribed to this grant relative to the other grants, experience has proven that applicants for the ERRAG seldom require the maximum amount of $25,000 to attend to their situation.
iii. Minor Repair Reconstruction Grant (MRRG)
The MRRG was increased from $10,000 to a maximum of $15,000 by decision of Cabinet in order to match what was being issued by other state agencies.
iv. Backlog of applications a. Officials admitted the Commission’s primary challenge was inadequate financial resources to provide a grant to each applicant. On average, the NCSHL receives between 1,500 and 2,000 applications annually. In 2011, the Commission had a backlog in excess of 5,000 applications for grants. At present, the Commission has the capacity to issue 2,000 grants per annum. Therefore, there is a generally a backlog of 3,000 applications brought forward in each year. b. The Commission was challenged to revisit a backlog of 1,500 pending applications filed prior to 2010. In pursuing this exercise, the Commission came to the realization that the circumstances of some of the pending applicants had improved and support from the Commission may no longer be required. As a consequence, the Commission took a decision to have persons whose application was filed prior to January 2010, resubmit same and thereafter the Commission would seek to review them and determine whether to intervene.
v. Assessment and prioritisation of applications
a. In order to establish which applications should be given priority, a score sheet is utilized. Criteria include; income, liabilities, condition of the structure, whether the applicant is ill, whether the applicant is differently abled, whether they have been issued a grant by another agency and whether they have indoor plumbing.
b. Applicants who are not given priority or would be automatically disqualified from receiving a grant includes; applicants with income-generating activities on their premises; land lords requesting assistance to improve the standard of their apartments and persons in receipt of an HDC/ NHA House and are desirous of conducting repairs or expansions. Nevertheless, the Commission has granted assistance to persons who reside in HDC settlements
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
52
c. Applicants are required to submit either a Land Tax Receipt, a copy of a deed or a Certificate of Comfort. In the absence of these documents, a sworn affidavit from the applicant is required stating that they have lived unencumbered for a period of years at the particular dwelling. Although applications are received from squatters who intend to construct concrete structures, the Commission cannot issue a grant.
vi. Procedure for Applicants
a. As it concerns Minor Repair Reconstruction Grants, applications can be submitted either directly to the NCSHL or through the relevant Member of Parliament. Once an application is submitted, the applicant is given a receipt that details the file number; the Project Officer assigned to the case and the days the Project Officer will be in office. These applications are processed electronically and placed on a database. b. Thereafter, a Field Officer conducts a visit approximately within a three (3) month period; a recommendation is made and the application is then processed for approval. During this visit, an assessment is made of existing conditions and photographs are taken. The timeframe for the execution of field visits may vary according to the number of applicants in the area/region to which the Project Officer is assigned. In many instances an applicant’s request would be approved but would be awaiting funding. The Committee was informed at present there are pending cases submitted since 2010.
c. The Committee was informed that currently approval of an application is communicated solely via letter. However, officials conveyed that often funding is not immediately available to honour these grants and this undermines the expectations of applicants. Officials gave the Committee an assurance that internal discussions will be held to determine how the existing feedback arrangementss could be improved.
d. A Bar Code System is expected to be implemented during this fiscal year (2013/2014) to facilitate the tracking of application forms. The cost of introducing the Bar Coding system was estimated at $20,000, however, the training of staff in the appropriate computer programme is also a prerequisite to operationalize the system.
vii. Relationships with Suppliers a. Officials advised that suppliers are paid, subject to confirmation that materials were delivered. However, in cases where a contractor is hired, NCSHL officials would visit the job site to verify that the job was completed. b. Officials conceded that under the existing circumstances, it was difficult to reduce the average waiting time for paying suppliers below two months. In some instances, suppliers have supplied material on credit to up to five (5) applicants. Common causes of delays in making payments to suppliers include; late delivery of materials by suppliers (in some cases two (2) weeks after an order was made);
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
53
the customer (grant applicant) may request that the material be delivered in parts. Therefore, it was suggested that the more feasible approach was to utilize a large supplier, who may be able to extend more credit facilities and give the best prices to the applicant. c. The Committee was informed that an applicant and alternatively, a Member of Parliament can be provided with a list of suppliers that do accept invoices from the NCSHL. However, the Commission expressed reservations about adopting such an approach as it may be interpreted as the Commission is attempting to guide the selection of suppliers in a particular direction. d. The Commission organized a symposium at the Preysal Community Centre and 150 suppliers were invited. The suppliers were asked to provide a projection of the prices of commonly sourced material. However, the response was very poor, as many suppliers were unwilling to hold a price for six months in the construction industry. e. The Committee was further advised that the three (3) quote system has been replaced and applicants are now required to attach a list of materials to the application form. This new approach was adopted as many applicants were required to pay between $20 to $150 for supplier quotations and also based on the fact that delays in the actual granting of funding resulted in quotations that were filed becoming outdated relative to changes in prices. The NCSHL took a decision to discontinue business with several hardware that charged applicants for a quotation and those that send an invoice without delivering materials.
viii. Water and Electricity Projects
Officials conveyed that there has been a decline in the number of applications for assistance that concern water and electricity and most persons now go through the Ministry of Public Utilities for electrification projects. Only two (2) water projects have qualified applicants for funding between February 2011 and November 2013. Water projects require designs from the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) and a voluntary partnership with the community to construct the necessary infrastructure for the water supply. Further, electricity projects require a survey from the Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission (T&TEC) and low voltage lines.
ix. Fulfillment of Mandate
a. The NCSHL was formed in 1987 primarily to partner with communities. However, as the economy evolved there has been less voluntary help available and NCSHL moved into contracting/outsourcing construction projects. Since 2010, the current board has reduced the number of contracting opportunities to a minimum amount and increased the level of community involvement. Currently, community based or “Self-Help” work accounts for close to 40 to 45 percent of the Commission’s funds.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
54
b. In addition to the provision of the MRRG and the ERRAG, the Commission provides a Low Cost Housing Grant as well as a Community Infrastructure Development (CID) Grant. The CID Grant fulfils the “Self Help” mandate as various community-based organizations (CBOs), faith-based organizations and community groups are provided with material, project management and technical expertise in order to execute a project. Officials conveyed that approximately forty to forty five percent of funding is spent on CID Grants.
x. Presence in Tobago
Applications received from Tobago go through the same application and approval process as a Trinidad applicant. There is no formal arrangement with the Tobago House of Assembly.
xi. Relationship with other agencies The Committee was informed that the sharing of information between the Commission, the Division of Social Services at the Tobago House of Assembly, the Ministry of the People and Social Development and the Housing Development Corporation is not formalized. Officials admitted that applicants may have received a grant from another state agencies as well as assistance from the NCSHL. In such circumstances, further funding in provided on a case by case basis. Therefore, the Commission endorsed the initiative of the Ministry of Legal Affairs to create a central database and believes that this database can be a means of determining whether person are in receipt of grants/assistance from other agencies.
xii. Changes to Ministerial Assignment a. A representative of the Ministry of Local Government admitted that she was not certain about the reasoning behind the transfer of the Commission from the Ministry of Community Development to the Ministry of Local Government. She posited that the reassignment might have been influence by the infrastructure-type work of the Ministry and its responsibilities vis-à-vis Municipal Corporations.
b. However, the CEO of the NCSHL officials expressed the view that the Commission may have been better placed under the purview of the Ministry of Community Development because the Community based activities of the Commission complimented the work of the Ministry of Community Development.
xiii. Field Officers
a. The Senior Project Officer manages Field Officers by allocating project visits and a time-frame for feedback. The lack of adequate field personnel has placed additional demand on field officers. In some instances, one (1) Field Officer is assigned to two (2) and three (3) constituencies. The response rate to applicants would depend on the number of applicants and the workload of the Field Officers.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
55
b. The mechanism for monitoring Field Officers is output based, where the Senior Project Officer measures the number of field visits done per day and the quality of information submitted to the Commission. In addition, the Internal Auditor depends on photographs of work done, applicants are interviewed via the telephone as a means of soliciting feedback and if necessary a site visit is conducted to determine whether visits were conducted. However, the Commission only has one (1) Internal Auditor and one (1) on-the-job trainee assigned to assist the Internal Auditor for Trinidad and Tobago.
c. Field Officers are paid $4,000 less than the Field Officers within the Ministry of the People and Social Development and the Sugar Welfare Company. They currently receive a travel allowance of $2,000 and a telephone allowance of $86.25 to $200.
xiv. Funding received by the Commission
The Commission over the past three (3) years has requested approximately $17 to $18 million on an annual basis for recurrent expenditure; however, for these years the commission was received $9.3, $10.4 million and $10.5 million. Therefore, a lack of adequate funding has prevented the Commission from acquiring the necessary resources to attend to the applicants in an efficient manner. Additional funding will assist the Commission to acquire a rough terrain vehicle, hand-held electronic communication devices and also to hire additional Field Officers.
xv. Organizational Structure a. The existing organizational structure of the Commission dates back to 1997 and has an approved establishment of less than forty (40) employees. The absence of an approved staff establishment and organizational chart has contributed to the delay in salary increases, which has been outstanding since 2006.
b. A new organization chart was initially proposed to the Ministry of Community Development and thereafter to the Ministry of Local Government. The revised chart has been approved by Public Management Consulting Division (PMCD) and recommends an increase in the compliment of staff to ninety six (96) and officials expect that it will be taken to Cabinet by the Minister of Public Administration by the end of 2013.
c. Officials indicated that the recommendation to increase the Commission’s complement of staff from forty (40) to ninety six (96) members was based on the volume of transactions forecasted over the next three to five years.
xvi. Funding for Minor Repair Grant
In July, 2011, the Commission submitted a proposal for increased funding in respect of the House Repair grant. Its proposal sought to increase the value of the grant to a minimum of $15, 000 to a maximum of $25, 000. To achieve this and to efficiently address the estimated 1,500 new applicants annually, it was proposed that an annual allocation of at least $80 million for the Infrastructure Development Fund (IDF) and $18 million for recurrent expenditure was necessary.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
56
xvii. Low Cost Housing Grant
a. The Low Cost Housing Grant was established as a one-off initiative for the construction of one hundred (100) houses by Cabinet Note approved in April 2013. Notice of this initiative was communicated to Members of Parliament via letters and asked that each MP submit two (2) requests for Housing. It was confirmed that several MPs made submissions and the construction of the commensurate housing solutions had commenced. The Low Cost Housing Grant was directed to persons who are unable to improve their household when given material. b. It was intended that under this Grant, a purchase order of $110,000 would be issued, whereby $75,000 was assigned for the purchase of materials and $45,000 to cover labour costs. In addition, it was envisioned that CBOs and Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) would come forward, provide their own labour and the Commission would provide only $75,000. c. The Committee was informed that at a board meeting held on November 6, 2013, the Chief Executive Officer was instructed to draft a Cabinet Minute to seek approval for the continuation of this Grant.
xviii. Audited Accounts
a. The Commission’s accounts are audited through an external auditor and audited accounts of the Commission are available up to financial year 2012.
xix. Payments owed to suppliers a. The Commission admitted that they are in possession of claims from suppliers dating back several years. However in several cases, these claims are not supported by a Purchase Order from the Commission. There are instances of suppliers who facilitated verbal orders, but the appropriate documentation was not processed to support such transactions. b. The Commission actually has a backlog of outstanding payments owed to suppliers estimated at $200, 000. The Commission’s Internal Audit Committee is presently reviewing twelve (12) cases involving suppliers with Purchase Orders issued during the period 2005 to 2009. In these cases, there is evidence that suggest that material was supplied; however, appropriate procedures were not followed.
xx. Establishment of sub-offices in rural areas.
It was submitted that due to inadequate funding, the Commission was unable to establish satellite offices in rural areas. Nevertheless, the Commission has sought the assistance of MPs and their Constituency Offices to act as a conduit for the submission of applications receive from residents in these areas.
xxi. Community Infrastructure Development (CID) Grants The main determinant when choosing a community to receive the CID Grant is that it must be willing to put out sweat equity. However, most applications come from low income communities rather than middle to high income community.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
57
6.4 At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Chairman conveyed appreciation to the officials for their attendance. He advised the officials that the Committee will forward correspondence in respect of the requests for additional information that arose during the discussions. 6.5 The Meeting was suspended at 11:58 a.m. REQUESTED INFORMATION 7.1 The NCSHL was asked to furnish the Committee with the following information:
i. the number of grants issued per constituency over the past five (5) years (for each type of grant) and the justification/rationale for issuing these grants to particular communities over the past five (5) years;
ii. the current number of pending applications for grants and details on how many of these applicants have benefited from site visits. How many of these applications have been scrutinised by the relevant external agencies;
iii. the existing organizational structure of the Commission and the number of vacancies within the organizational structure;
iv. the details of the proposed revised organizational structure;
v. details of the Commission’s present accommodation arrangements.
vi. the Commission’s recommendations for modifying its accommodation arrangements to facilitate the proposed increase in staff;
vii. the current strategic plan of the Commission; and
viii. the Management Letter in respect of the Commission’s Audited Financial
Statements for 2012.
[Members exited the J. Hamilton Maurice Room and proceeded to the Arnold Thomasos Room (East)]
CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT INQUIRY PROPOSAL ON THE TRINIDAD
AND TOBAGO BLIND WELFARE ASSOCIATION (TTBWA)
8.1 The Chairman reconvened the meeting in the Arnold Thomasos Room (East) at 12:10 p.m. 8.2 The Chairman indicated that on October 18, 2013, a Draft Inquiry Proposal on the Trinidad and Tobago Blind Welfare Association (TTBWA) was circulated for the consideration of members via email. 8.3 The Committee reviewed and approved the Draft. 8.4 The Committee agreed that its next meeting would be held on December 13, 2013 and at that meeting, it will convene a public hearing with TTBWA.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
58
DETERMINATION OF WORK PROGRAMME 9.1 The Chairman reminded Members that at its last meeting held on October 4, 2013, the Committee agreed that the order of priority and areas of focus regarding entities which it intended to inquire into will be discussed at the meeting in progress. 9.2 The Committee agreed that it would prioritise the following entities and the respective areas of focus:
i. Government Human Resource Services Limited (GHRS)
Strategic Plans
Range of services
Status of operations
Vacancies for the period 2008-2013: the number of positions advertised, the number of positions filled and existing vacancies
Major challenges
Achievements
Ministerial assignment
ii. Port Authority of Trinidad and Tobago (PATT)-Port of Port-of-Spain
Vessel Traffic Management System: who manages the system
A review of the metrics system that is applied;
The operation of the One-Stop Barrel Shop
The performance of the PPAT as compared to other local and regional ports
Strategic Plans of the organization
Status update of operations
Challenges
Achievements
To determine who is responsible for managing ports in T&T
Operations of the Tobago Inter-Island Ferry: labor, improvements and challenges that have resulted/arisen further to the restructuring of the Port of Port of Spain
Financial status
Responsibility for vessels that may be considered unseaworthy/derelict that are docked at the Port of Spain harbor
Status of vessels that have either been confiscated or anchored between Port of Spain and San Fernando
Risk management procedures or processes
Mechanisms for scheduling the arrival of other vessels that are required to be on stand-by to facilitate incoming Atlantic LNG shipments.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
59
iii. Evolving TecKnologies and Enterprise Development Company Limited (eTecK)
Historical overview and mandate
Status and update of operations
Challenges
Achievements
A review of operations, in terms of accountability, transparency and operational benchmarking
Timeframe for completion and budgetary issues for outstanding projects
Mechanisms to ensure there is value for money for projects undertaken
iv. Community Improvement Services Limited (CISL)
Mandate
Achievements
Challenges
Status (timeline for completion, project budget) and location of current
projects
Procurement procedures for projects
CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT REPORT (Continued) Draft 14th Report on the administration and operations of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service 10.1 The Committee resumed its review the Draft Fourteenth Report and the following additional amendments were made:
a. New Recommendation (F), page 45 -: Insert “We recommend that the TTPS take
a critical look at the ratio of Social Workers to internal clients so that over time it can
be in alignment to international best practices.”
b. New Recommendation (G), page 45: Insert “We recommend that vacancies in positions on the ‘Executive Management Team’ such as Head of Legal and Head of Internal Audit be filled as a matter of priority.”
c. New Recommendation (H), page 45: Insert “We recommend that a proper assessment be done to determine the appropriate number of vehicles that are needed to effectively support the work of the TTPS.”
10.2 The Committee approved the Report subject to the foregoing amendments. Mr. Jeffrey agreed to present the Report in the House of Representatives.
ADJOURNMENT
11.1 The meeting was adjourned at 12:52 p.m. I certify that these Minutes are true and correct.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
60
CHAIRMAN
SECRETARY
December 09, 2013
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
61
APPENDIX III NOTES OF EVIDENCE
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
62
PRESENT
Dr. Victor Wheeler Chairman
Mr. David Small Vice-Chairman
Mrs. Raziah Ahmed Member
Dr. Lincoln Douglas Member
Miss Alicia Hospedales Member
Mr. Fitzgerald Jeffrey Member
Dr. Lester Henry Member
Miss Candice Skerrette Assistant Secretary
Mrs. Jacqueline Phillip-Stoute Procedural Clerk
Mr. Indar Sieunarine Parliamentary Intern
ABSENT
Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie Member [Excused]
Dr. Tim Gopeesingh Member [Excused]
Mr. Kevin Ramnarine Member [Excused]
Mr. Clifton De Coteau Member [Excused]
Mr. Collin Partap Member
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SELF-HELP LIMITED
Mr. Surujdeo Mangaroo Chairman
Mr. Reynold Baldeosingh Chief Executive Officer
Ms. Kousil Nandee Project Accountant
Ms. Petronilla Basdeo Director
VERBATIM NOTES OF THE TWENTY-SIXTH MEETING OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE OF
PARLIAMENT APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO AND REPORT ON GOVERNMENT MINISTRIES
(GROUP 2), STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND STATE ENTERPRISES FALLING UNDER THOSE
MINISTRIES, HELD IN THE ARNOLD THOMASOS ROOM (EAST), LEVEL 6 AND THE J. HAMILTON
MAURICE ROOM, MEZZANINE FLOOR, OFFICE OF THE PARLIAMENT, TOWER D, PORT OF SPAIN
INTERNATIONAL WATERFRONT CENTRE, #1A WRIGHTSON ROAD, PORT OF SPAIN ON
FRIDAY NOVEMBER 8, 2013 AT 9:35 A.M.
63
MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Ms. Katrina Mooleedhar Planning Officer I
Ms. Meena Abiraj AE II
Mr. Chairman: I will like to welcome you here today to this the sitting of the Joint Select
Committee Group 2, the committee that is set up by section 66A of the Constitution and is
mandated to inquire and examine the administration of operations of different government
Ministries and agencies.
Today we have the National Commission for Self-Help and we have members here, and we will
hopefully be joined by representatives of the Ministry of Local Government. I would first like to
invite the members of the National Commission for Self-Help to introduce themselves.
[Introductions made]
Mr. Chairman: Welcome, and I would like to invite the members, starting with Minister Douglas;
introduce yourselves.
[Introductions made]
Mr. Chairman: I would first like to ask Mr. Mangaroo, if you would like to give some brief
comments about your organization—brief opening remarks.
Mr. Mangaroo: Basically we assumed office in 2010. Of course we continue with the good works
of the commission. We are continuing the good works of the commission, reaching out to the
underprivileged and those in need in our community.
Mr. Chairman: Would you like to give a brief description of what your organization does?
Mr. Mangaroo: What should I say? We deal with grants. We have two types of grants: the Minor
Repair and Renovation Grant reaching out to the families in need, those with income less than
$3,000, and we have an emergency grant called the ERRAG, which was established two years ago
to reach out to people who have suffered from fire and natural disasters. We also deal with
community projects called the CID; that includes roads, bridges, drains and other community
infrastructure. We also deal with orphan roads and religious organizations like churches, temples
and mosques.
Mr. Chairman: Okay. I would like to invite Miss Hospedales who has some questions to ask.
Miss Hospedales: Good morning, everyone again. In the submission that you made to the
committee you indicated to us that you give priority to the most vulnerable people, specifically senior
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
64
citizens, fire victims, and you also stated that normally in a case of an emergency, for example, a fire
or natural disaster, that you would visit the location where the incident occurred within 24 hours,
do an assessment and then issue the grant. The first question I want to ask, is this the procedure
for all cases that would have come to your attention?
Mr. Mangaroo: Yes.
Miss Hospedales: So you said yes. The reason I am asking this—I want to ask you: In all cases
that come before you, apart from what you said to us here, how do you define emergency and
emergency case, and is it that in all cases the grants are actually issued within 24 hours of having
contact with the affected families?
Mr. Mangaroo: The CEO will answer that.
Mr. Baldeosingh: Chairman, before I respond, I would like to just inform the committee that PS
Amroodeen Ali could not come this morning because his mother died yesterday. We only found
out while we were waiting for the start.
Mr. Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Baldeosingh: The Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Assistance Grant was established in
July 2011, and the primary purpose was to set a grant that was separate from the regular House
Repair Grant in which we could respond and deliver within—the mandate had been 48 hours. Many
times we are not informed directly of the disaster, but indirectly via the media or sometimes the
local government representatives or the Members of Parliament. So even when we become aware
of an incident, we respond.
Your question of what is an emergency—the emergency is normally a response to a disaster
in our case. So we respond to fires; we respond to storm damage; we respond to land slippage.
Even though we have an officer on site within 24 hours, there are many cases where the person who
is affected cannot say what material they need immediately.
So if the person is ready to repair the home right away and they give us an invoice for the
supplier, we are able to deliver those materials within 48 hours. Where the person still has to consult
a builder or look for a new site or demolish the structure, it takes a bit longer.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
65
Miss Hospedales: Mr. Chair, the reason I am asking these questions is because of my knowledge
of two cases. You said to us that senior citizens are given priority, fire victims are given priority,
victims of natural disasters are given priority. In the first case I want to identify it has to do with a
senior citizen whose home was burnt. All the forms were submitted, the police report was
submitted. The article highlighting the person’s incident had also been submitted, because the article
was in the news the day after. The individual lost a relative in the fire as well.
It took two years of having to raise the issue on the floor during debates, writing to the
Minister—two respective Ministers—establish contact with the Office of the National Self-Help
Commission for that individual to get assistance, and that was an emergency case.
The second issue that I want to raise is a senior citizen, again, whose roof was damaged
during the course of a natural disaster; no fault of hers. Her neighbour’s roof was blown off and
landed on hers. That issue, even though the report of the local government arm was made, the
forms were submitted, et cetera, et cetera, it took two years for that individual to get a response.
That is why I am asking, how long does it take for an emergency case to be responded to, because
two years for those two cases that I am pretty much familiar with to have gotten a response from
the National Self-Help Commission is way, way, way too long.
Ms. Basdeo: If I may, each particular case would turn on its own facts and there would be
extenuating circumstances that may—and I am saying may because we do not know the case that
you are specifically speaking about. If perhaps we are given a name we can justify it or at least give
a reason this was so, but to say it in a vacuum will be a little bit unfair to us.
Part of the criteria—it is not just every emergency that the National Commission for Self-
Help responds to. With our limited available funds we respond emergencies dependent on the
financial needs of the persons, and as our CEO would have indicated, depending on their availability
and having what they need at that particular point in time. Perhaps if we are supplied with a name
we can indicate what transpired, but in a vacuum we would be unable to say.
Miss Hospedales: Ma’am, for the protection of the two individuals I would not like to highlight
that in the public, but I can give you the information. They did receive the response, but I am saying
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
66
two years is way too long for an emergency.
The gentleman who lost his home by fire, his life has not even began to get back to a level
of normalcy because he received the grant this year. Two years is way too long. That is all I really
want to emphasize. For emergency cases, that two-year wait, that time frame to actually respond to
those individuals is really, really, really too long.
Dr. Douglas: Probably you guys could tell us what are some of the challenges or limitations or
issues you face in responding to applications, and grant application, because it seems to me that this
would indicate there is some level of disconnect or issues. I too have applied and things have taken
long. So probably you could tell us what are some of the challenges and limitations you face in
meeting the requests and demands of grants.
Mr. Chairman: If I may, before you answer, I would just like to welcome two members from the
Ministry of Local Government. I do not know if you would just like to introduce yourselves briefly.
Ms. Mooleedhar: Good morning, my name is Katrina Mooledhar. I am a Planning Officer I at
the Ministry of Local Government, associated with the National Commission for Self-Help.
Ms. Abiraj: Good morning, my name is Meena Abiraj. I am the AE II at the Ministry of Local
Government.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Baldeosingh: Chairman, in response to the concern about the turnaround time, as has been
said, the response is there but the issue of the grant may have been delayed. If we know the case,
we could determine why the response was delayed. As I said earlier, sometimes it takes long for the
applicant to decide what they need in order for us to purchase the material for them.
In response to Dr. Douglas though, I gather that we are moving away from the emergency
grant into the general grant operation.
Dr. Douglas: I am talking about in general, either way.
Mr. Baldeosingh: Yeah, because most of what I see coming from your office would be the regular
MRRG grants. In 2011, we had a backlog in excess of 5,000 grants to be issued, and we had the
capacity at that time to issue 1,250 grants in in each financial year. The volume of applications that
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
67
come in now averages between 1,500 to 2,000 grants a year. We are now in fiscal 2014 up to where
we could issue 2,000 grants in one year; 2,000 minor repairs and construction grants, and we are still
able to respond to the emergency grant applications separately.
But even if we respond to 2,000 per year and we have a backlog of 3,000 coming forward,
it means we have to give priority to the person who actually receives the grant. We therefore
established a system of using a score sheet and we moved away from a system prior to 2011 that
gave priority to the ageing population, but did not give any priority to a young person, maybe with
five children.
So in giving priority we look at the income, we look at the liabilities, how the money is spent,
we look at the amount of dependents in the household, and we look at the condition of the structure,
whether the person is ill, whether the person is differently abled, whether they have been issued a
grant by another agency and whether they have indoor plumbing. We have devised a quantitative
method of assessing in order to be able to justify why we could give a grant to somebody whose
condition might be worse off than another applicant.
So the major constraint really is the funding, that we are not able to issue a grant to every
applicant.
Mr. Chairman: Could I just interject. Could you just please explain the process for someone
needing assistance; what do they need to do. Just take us through that.
Mr. Baldeosingh: The person needing assistance would normally apply to us on the MRRG, Minor
Repairs and Reconstruction Grant application form, which they submit either directly to the
National Commission for Self-Help, or they submit via the off of the Member of Parliament.
When we receive that—and we have had many people coming to us and saying they sent in
an application and we do not have it on file. So what we have also implemented is a system of giving
a receipt that gives the file number and gives the project officer assigned to the case. So most
people—well, the people coming to the self-help office either in Tobago, San Fernando or Port of
Spain to apply, would receive a receipt.
The applications are then processed electronically. We create a database and we assign the
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
68
file to assist them.
10.35 a.m.
Then it is visited by a field officer and a recommendation is made. The field officer brings in an
assessment, as well as, he brings in pictures of the condition of the house. It is then assessed and
put forward for a process of approval.
Many times people are told that their files are approved, but awaiting funding. Some people
assume that “approved” means it is ready to be collected at the Self Help Commission. But we go
through the process and present it to the Board, and the Board will then say the application is
approved, the funding is not always available. So then that file may be waiting funding, and then at
the start of the financial year we often go back into, like right now we are going back into 2010 to
see the most needed cases that are still on the database since 2010, then we will deal with 2011, 2012,
2013.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Jeffrey—[Interruption]
Dr. Douglas: I want to finish my line of questions, if I may, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Ok, sure. Continue.
Dr. Douglas: I am trying to clarify, because this is an issue for all of us, and you have given some
examples of when somebody applies for a grant, why? You know most people—as the Member of
Parliament, you have to give them and explanation why they are not getting their money as far as
they are concerned. So that is why I ask the question about the challenges, you know, when
somebody applies, they come to my office and they full out a form and next thing they are calling
your office and saying, “whe meh grant”, right.
So I wanted to understand for my own sake in terms of both rectifying the situation, and
even to fulfill some of the concerns of the Member, Miss Hospedales, as to what are some of the
things that are going on there. I know there are issues, the person might not own the house but
they apply.
You know there are lots of things that have to be—go on between—[Interruption]
Mr. Baldeosingh: Yes.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
69
Dr. Douglas: What are some of the things that have to be clarified or challenges that you face in
order for them to finally have a cheque in their hand?
Mr. Baldeosingh: We have many cases—[Interruption]
Dr. Douglas: I just mentioned a few. Sorry, I did not mean to cut you off, but you did mention
about not having the funding or the quantity of request also to process and the capacity of staff. I
do not know if you have enough staff to deliver it? I do not think there is anything else.
Mr. Baldeosingh: On the applicants side we have applications from people who have income
generating operation on the premises. So they have a parlour. But then they declare that they are
getting $800 a month from the parlour. When we go we will see a parlour that we know. If we look
at property with income-generating operations, we do not normally issue a grant. In fact, we would
hardly ever issue a grant to a property with a parlour, barbershop and hairdressing salon. Then we
have people applying with tenant on their property saying to us, help them to improve the property
so that they could get the rents from the property. We do not intervene in cases like that as well.
We have had many cases from people who have received houses from HDC or NHA and then still
come to apply to do an addition or a renovation, and so on.
So, those are some of the cases that will not be given priority or not ever receive a grant,
unless it is the case of an emergency. If there is an emergency—sometime, about two years ago
there was—I remember some high wind between Arouca and Maloney, and so on, and there were
roofs blowing off even down in the HDC settlement. I remember we were there in Maloney that
very evening and we were able to give roofing material and some electrical repair material to a few
families there. So, we will not ignore the HDC housing because they received a house from HDC
when we know that the person now actually owns the home and have been maintaining the home
for a prolong period.
[Dr. Henry enters committee]
Mr. Chairman: Anything else? Mr. Jeffrey.
Mr. Jeffrey: Many hardware store owners in Point Fortin and indeed, I guess the La Brea
Constituency, are reluctant to do business with the National Commission for Self Help because of
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
70
the tardiness in the settling of payments. I say this against the background that you have to make
the three quotes at the lowest price hardware store. Very often they are not interested in accepting
an invoice from the National Commission for Self Help. I looked at your document here on page
3 and it gives a kind of partial explanation that worries me, under item 4.
“Each Project Officer is assigned a district and before invoices are paid, Officers must visit
the job site to verify that materials have been delivered and the work is completed.”
Now, I find that second part—“work is completed” is worrying. I believe that once the
items are delivered and the hardware store submits their invoices they should be paid. But if the
work has to be completed that is a worrying thing.
Mr. Baldeosingh: We have focused mainly on the grants for the minor repairs and reconstruction
and emergency grants. The paragraph here does not say specifically, but it also applies to the past,
because it is something that we have reduced tremendously. In the past when the Self Help
Commission would have intervened and put a contractor on site to do something. So when we
issue a grant for building materials, when the supplier sends us an invoice before we pay, we go on
site and look at the materials.
When we assign a contactor to complete a job, for instance, hand railings and steps in Picton,
coming down the slope, if at the end of that job we will not have inspected the delivery of materials
in that case because we would have given the contractor to do that, that job, to implement that
job—we will then visit to see that the work is completed. But for the supply of materials, I clarify
that it is only when the materials are delivered we are satisfied and we pay.
You mentioned the three quote system. The people who apply to us are low income home
owners and they often try to get the most material for the amount of money that they could get. So
they try to get from the best supplier, and as you say the best supplier may not want to do business
with the government or for the Self Help Commission.
Mr. Jeffrey: But how do we address that?
Mr. Baldeosingh: We have tried to own our systems but it is difficult to reduce payment below a
two month cycle. When the supplier receives the order sometimes they too delay in the delivery, so
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
71
they may add two weeks before they actually deliver material on site. The person may not be ready
for the material immediately as well. Sometimes they say, deliver some parts of the material but they
do not deliver the cement. That was a common one.
Hon. Member: Yeah.
Mr. Baldeosingh: So the hardware owner may have started to deliver but they cannot invoice us—
[Interruption]
Mr. Jeffrey: Right.
Mr. Baldeosingh: Because he has not completed—[Interruption]
Mr. Jeffrey: Good.
Mr. Baldeosingh: So when we start to add in on the supply side, time to the payment cycle and
then he invoices us, our officers must now visit—then it comes back to account. No matter what
we have tried to do at the Self Help Commission the average time remains a two months cycle.
Some of the suppliers are able to extend credit for five grants, maybe $50,000.
So the lowest supplier may say they give us five grants and they are waiting on payment.
Five grants will not all be within the same two-month cycle. So then they measure that they are
waiting on Self Help for more than two months, three months to get payment for the five grants
before they open credit again. The larger suppliers who may be able to extend more credit often
have higher prices. So the ideal cases are larger supplier who could extend more credit and give the
best prices to the applicant. We are challenged to get, always get that type of supplier.
Mr. Jeffrey: I think that one of the worrying thing is that sometimes we have a poor person who
want to access the grant, okay, and they are trying to get these three quotes, “ah rite” and they go
by x, y, z, and so on. After you do all of that you realize, listen, that last person there, if even though
he hasthe best prices and so on, “dey doh really want to do business with the National Commission
for Self Help”, so you have to go by another person. Is there a way, for example, we could get a list
of hardware stores that you think will accept invoices from the National Commission for Self Help
that those poor persons and them, they could go to and save a transportation cost in going from x,
y and z hardware stores?
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
72
Mr. Baldeosingh: The response to that is, we could not and we will provide the office of every
Member of Parliament with the list of suppliers that are willing to do business with us. We first
thought of it and we did not want to appear as if we are guiding the business to specific suppliers—
[Interruption]
Mr. Jeffrey: Yeah, yeah, I understand that.
Mr. Baldeosingh: We did have a symposium and we invited, may be 150 suppliers to a meeting in
Preysal in the Community Centre and we asked them to give prices for goods, for the common
materials over the next six months. The response to that was very poor because many suppliers do
not want to hold a price for six months in the construction industry. But yes we are able to provide
a list of the people, but I reiterate we do not want to appear as if we are guiding the business in a
specific direction.
Mr. Jeffrey: Yeah, yeah, I know.
Mr. Baldeosingh: The application form which is commonly called a “green form” has an attached
list of the requirements and we have removed the three quotes, we have just asked for a list of the
materials. As you quite rightly said, some people are waiting two years for a grant and after that
two-year wait the prices that they would have submitted then would not apply anymore. In realizing
that, we asked—we told them that a list of the materials alone would be accepted, so when the grant
is approved we could then call the applicant and tell them, even if your needs have changed you
could go back to the supplier.
We also wanted to discourage people from paying for a quotation to bring to us, and when
we discover that the supplier is actually charging for a quotation we try not to do business with those
suppliers. So we may tell someone do not go by a particular supplier if they have to pay. Some
people—and I do not want to say that I am aligning poverty with illiteracy, but many of our
applicants are unable to determine what are the requirements at the hardware and some of the
suppliers actually charged between $20 to $150 just to do the quotations. We have actually
discontinued doing business with several hardwares because of that.
We have discontinued with suppliers who try to send the invoice to us without delivery,
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
73
received the payment and then deliver the goods. And at first we encountered where the person
may have had to wait two or three weeks for the supplier to deliver but then we discovered that was
based on the credit capacity of the supplier. So we have not discontinued doing business with people
like that because we appreciate the business in—especially in the remote communities where the
supplier as I said may not be able to do more than 50,000 credits at one time.
Mr. Jeffrey: My next question is, why has the National Commission for Self Help decreased its
implementation of water and electricity projects?
Mr. Baldeosingh: Well, we—I would not say that we have decrease the implementation in terms
of refusal of projects, but we have had less applications for water and electricity. I think most people
for electricity now go to the NSDP facility in the Ministry of—I think it was in Public Utilities, it
may be in social services now for electrification projects.
For water projects as well, we have implemented since I am at the Self Help Commission in
February 2011, only two water projects where we have had applications that qualified for our
intervention. We have had several applications from land developers who are selling off land
without any approvals or water or electricity and then they come to us for a water project. If we
visit and we see a community, a densely populated community we may want to intervene, but when
we see more open land than houses we know that we are helping a developer increase the price for
their land. So we do not, we have refused water projects like that in the past.
Mr. Jeffrey: So people, poor people for example, they could still access the water and electricity
project unit?
Mr. Baldeosingh: Yes, the water projects are projects that when we receive the application we ask
WASA for a design for the solution or else WASA will not connect to their main. When we have
that design we then partner with the community, we give them a backhoe to dig the trench and we
give them sand to fill the trench, we give them the pipe lines and the fittings but the community has
to come together and build that water supply.
So for electricity and a case that came to me yesterday, a young mother came asking for
electricity supply because she is 600 feet from the last pole. So I called T&TEC to see if I could get
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
74
some cooperation, and the first question asked, “Does she has ownership?” And she said, “No”,
she living on the train line there. So to get four poles from T&TEC seems like an easy task, but it
is not, it requires a survey, it requires low voltage lines—[Interruption]
Dr. Douglas: You see there is the limit. Those are the kinds of things I was asking about earlier,
because everybody seems to think that once you apply you get it—now you are raising some other
issues of land ownerships and limitation. Those are the kind of things I am trying to understand a
little clearer. I can understand exactly what your limitations are, but go ahead.
Mr. Chairman: I am just reminding Members to put on their mike when you are speaking. You
finish?
Mr. Jeffrey: First rounds.
Mr. Chairman: Okay. Mr. Small.
Mr. Small: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see that you welcome the members of the
Commission. I see that we have run and delved into the operational issues pretty much because
those seem to be the hot button issues. I have some different questions to ask because I think that
I am, the submission for me did not necessarily help me in the discussion so far. I think that what
has come out, information or data that would have really help to guide the committee to formulate
some really hard questions. It was not all submitted.
I am trying to understand—I have a long list of questions, Mr. Chairman, so bear with me,
I am only going to ask two on this first page. When I looked at what the Commission is supposed
to do, nurture and develop a culture of Self Help, the only way I could measure that to understand
that is, okay, can you give me a spatial spread of where you did grants over the past five years and
where we issue grants in these areas and these are the numbers. These are the numbers applied for
in this area, these were granted.
I am struggling to understand how you achieve your mandate. I understand your operational
realities as so put forward by the CEO that you have operational difficulties, but I am taking it, just
rationate to that a bit. You have a mandate as an organization to nurture and develop a culture of
Self Help. For me to understand if you have achieved that, I need to understand where is the data,
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
75
where are your reports to say over the past year or the past two years, past three years, and what are
the spatial spread, not just tell me in total, I need to understand the spatial spread, to understand the
communities that you have targeted or have approached you or whatever to understand—are you
really serving the national community? I am not saying you are not, but in the absence of data and
reports I am struggling.
That is the first question. I would like to understand from the Chairman, because I think
this is really a high level question, to the extent that the organization has operational challenges.
Would you share with us, what is your view of your delivery to date on your specific mandate to the
organization, to the developed Self Help, because I am hearing about grants going out, it is lovely
and I have no problem with it. But grants is just one element of what you are supposed to be doing.
Could you summon from the Commission, help me to understand, this is what we are charged to
do and this is the extent to which we think we delivered on what we have been charged to do. Yeah.
Mr. Baldeosingh: The data and reports are available per constituency for the various types of
grants, but I do not think it was specifically requested here. Unfortunately, we responded to the
questions posed to us prior to this meeting in the letter that we were asked to respond to. So,
subsequently we were asked to present the data we are able to do so.
Mr. Chairman: We would like you to present that in writing, yes, thank you.
Mr. Baldeosingh: On the aspect of the Self Help, we have two, I will say three facilities. We have
the house grant, the minor repairs grant and we have the emergency grant. We have the community
infrastructure development grant and that is where the Self Help aspect comes in. That is where we
provide the materials and the project management and the technical expertise to various community
based organizations, faith base organizations and even unorganized community groups who come
together in an ad hoc way for a specific purpose. We provide the materials and the community
provides the labour. It applies to many of the religious organization in Trinidad and Tobago where
we are funding the improvement of many of the structures that people use. And what we look at is
the value of those structures to the community. We have police service youth clubs, sporting clubs,
pan theatres as well, we have constructed small, what we called “activity centres” for youths by the
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
76
community. That was not really a Self Help, but the Self Help aspect continues and we spend close
to 40 to 45 per cent of our funding on the Self Help side.
When the Self Help Commission was formed in 1987 it was primarily for partnering with
the communities. As it evolved, and in order to partner, voluntary help was needed from the
communities and as the economy grew there was less and less voluntary help available and the Self
Help Commission moved into contracting.
When in 2010 the Board, the current Board took charge of the Self Help Commission for
that following year, going into fiscal 2011 and even in fiscal year 2012, there was residual contracting
opportunities that were continued and have reduced now to, I do not want to give a percentage, but
to a minimum amount of where we put a contractor to do a Self Help project. We say to the
communities that if they have tried the Ministry of Works or the Ministry of Local Government and
they do not have a response, and they apply to us, then what is the equity that they will have to
bring?
So we have moved over the last financial year and may be some months before, we have
moved from mass contracting as happened prior to 2011 into more of where the community is
bringing equity. We have provided road materials, a backhoe and a roller and asked the community
to spread the material and we will let the roller pass on it.
The water project we just completed in Ramoutar Drive, Kelly Village in Caroni, the villagers
came out and they put their pipe together. So the Self Help aspect of it is what we find important
now and we also, based on the data we have seen, we are implementing many more community
infrastructural development projects by partnering with communities than with partnering with a
contractor and paying the contractor.
Mr. Small: Thank you for the response. I have—I will ask one more question and allow someone
else to ask. I have listened also to the discussions so far, and internally I would like to understand
when someone submits an application other than an emergency, a normal application, is there a
response period that you can tell people, let us say, listen, we have to check to make sure you are
not getting assistance from other places.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
77
I think there must be somewhere within your system you should be able to say that within
90 days you will hear from us either way. Is that something that you can, because I have heard that
people have applied and I have heard that people have waited years or whatever? There must be in
my mind, there must be some system I wish to say, we have to check here to make sure you are not
earning from anywhere, you are not checking someplace else, you are not renting, you own the
property. There are several checks that we have to do internally and we think that on average within
60 to 90 days you will get a response for a particular type of grant or other type of grant.
I think it is important to have some rigor within the system not just—I understand there is
a backlog, but I think that there should be some way of saying listen under the best of circumstances
this is what we think our response time is going to be given that there are other vagaries, but I think
that needs to be in there. And as a corollary to that, I think that also when the organization is doing
these things what is the feedback loop? Is it that someone submits an application and then they just
sit and wait to hear from you or is it that you say listen you have to send up a little, your application
has been received. It is receiving attention.
I do not know, is there a loop in there because that often is a gap in a system that somebody
comes in brings something in and then they left in wonderment as to what is going on, and have to
be calling and showing up at your door whatever time calling the rep whatever. Is there some system
in there for feedback loop that says listen we have received your application and someone will write
a note and say listen, it is under consideration and it will—I think that is important. They get a
receipt, but I am saying—[Interruption]
Hon. Member: They get a receipt.
Mr. Small: I know you get a receipt but I am saying, I think a feedback loop that is different, I
understand you come and bring it and someone say we have it. You sit and three months you hear
nothing. I think that somewhere in the system there should be a loop that says a phone call or a
little note, or a memo whatever that says your application has been received, this is where it is at and
we anticipate it is going to happen.
So I think it is link to my first question, the timeline, is there a timeline that you can tell
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
78
people within 90 days or 120 days whatever it is given the best of circumstances this is when it is
going to happen or you would get some word and link to that how do you feed that information to
the person. I do not think a receipt is enough. A receipt is just saying we have gotten it. Yeah.
Mr. Baldeosingh: I understand and I accept what you are saying there. The receipt gives the name
of the project officer and the days in which that person is in office. The visit to the person is made
within a three-month period depending on the volume of applications. For instance, we may have
on a population density we may have less applications coming out of Cumuto/Manzanilla or
Toco/Sangre Grande and the officer may be able to visit in a shorter time period than the
applications coming out in Port of Spain South, more densely populated area.
So the turnaround time depends on the workload of the officer, but within 90 days the
person is visited, they know who is the officer, they know the days the person is in office and it is
our experience that the applicant contacts the officer. They come in on that specific day, they meet
the officer or they call that officer. I know that we could improve it by sending some
correspondence to the applicant but we refrain from building hope in the minds of the applicant
when we do not have the funding.
11.05 a.m.
I met a system where, for the CID grants, where if the grant was approved for $319,000, a
letter was sent to the community saying that it was approved for $319,000, and years after the people
keep coming back. They spent $200,000; they want the balance and so on, when we may not even
have funding for something that was approved in 2007 or way back when. If we send a letter to
the person who applies for the house committing ourselves further and we do not have the funding,
we are building up in the minds of the people that it is near ready.
So based on what you are saying, we will hold internal discussions and see how we could
improve the communication and, hopefully, by airing what we are airing this morning, if we ever are
able to take the funding up to where we could issue a grant to every one of the 5,000-plus people
who are on our database waiting for a grant, then the turnaround time would be faster as well as the
response would be better.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
79
Mr. Small: Thank you. I just wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that I want to put on record, for me, I
think it is important—I think that the National Commission for Self-Help could play a more
significant role, and for me, I think it is woefully underfunded and under-resourced. I think that
because we have so many societal challenges here and that the Commission is a community building
tool that could go into communities and get people together to do things, I was really amazed at
what the number of the budget is, given the scale of expenditure and other things.
I am concerned that—I think that I want to record that I think it is woefully underfunded
and under-resourced and I think that it has a lot of potential to do good at a community level, which
is where we have all sorts of challenges across the country, in various parts of the country, and I
know the guys—I am not pounding the guys, but I think that needs to be said. We have some
operational challenges. I am understanding better those challenges and I still think there are things
you can do to improve as you go along, but I think also that there needs to be some recognition out
of this that there needs to be some way to try to resource the organization. I have some other
questions but I will refrain and pass on.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, Miss Hospedales. First, let us welcome Sen. Lester Henry who has joined us.
Miss Hospedales: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to, at the end of this session, leave this
meeting with a little bit of hope. I listened to Mr. Mangaroo in terms of the time frame within which
a field officer is to visit an applicant, someone who would have applied for the grant, and, Sir, you
know, I do not know if you all—one of the questions I would like to ask: do you all have a system
of monitoring or evaluation, of holding these field officers to account? Because I am aware, again,
of people who have applied approximately five years and have never received a visit from a field
officer.
There has to be some kind of system in place to ensure that those officers who are to review these
people’s applications are held to account and called to report on these field visits. Something has
to be done.
Mr. Baldeosingh: One of the challenges that we faced and we did not air here earlier this morning,
is that when we looked at the backlog of grants prior to January 2010, and we started to ask field
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
80
officers to visit, we realized in a large amount of the cases, the circumstances had changed. People’s
children, during the five years that they are waiting, may have graduated and they are now able to
repair the house, or the house had been repaired, or the people had moved on, and we sent out
correspondence—and I know the correspondence was directed to every Member of Parliament—
to say that grant applications that were submitted before January 2010, that the applicant was asked
to reapply and resubmit information.
So we do not go back—and we have the signs up in the offices and so on. But we do not
go back to the dated ones, because there were too many and because the circumstances had changed,
it required a revisit. So we were being burdened to revisit in excess of 1,500 applications when we
made that decision. So we said that if people reapply, they give us new information that we are able
to now visit and process, and that is where we focus January 2010 onwards.
Mr. Chairman: Okay. I would just like to ask, you said you do projects in Tobago. Is it that you
have an office in Tobago to receive applications?
Mr. Baldeosingh: Yes, we do.
Mr. Chairman: And what liaising takes place with the Tobago House of Assembly, in particular
the Division of Social Services, which I am aware does give similar grants to persons?
Mr. Baldeosingh: We do not have a formal arrangement for the house grants in Tobago. The
applications go to the Self-Help Commission’s office and it goes through the process that is
described and it gets approval and we issue the grant. We have had public grant distribution
ceremonies in Tobago and we invite the members of the THA, the Chief Secretary and his
councilmen to the distributions. But the distributions come in general from people in Tobago.
The share of information with the Division of Social Services at the THA or in Trinidad
with the HDC which has a house grant, the Ministry of Social Services here, is not formalized. I am
aware that in the Ministry of Legal Affairs a central database was being looked at from the consumer
division, and we believe that it will be a useful tool if implemented, so that we could be informed if
the person is receiving a grant from another state agency.
Mr. Chairman: So are you saying that there are persons who may be receiving grants from the
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
81
THA as well as from your agency?
Mr. Baldeosingh: Mr. Chairman, the people that we deal with, that receive our grants, the
condition in which they live, $15,000 maximum from us and $15,000 from THA or the Ministry of
Social Development here, or the HDC, often is not sufficient to provide a solution. So whereas we
would appreciate if we have the information or if we could share the information on the database,
we have encountered cases where people would have received a grant before and they built one
room and they have eight children in one room with an outhouse, and we cannot say because they
received a grant from another agency that we will deny them. So we do it on a case basis.
But to answer your question, we do not have official information exchange with the other agencies.
Mr. Chairman: One other question I would like to ask is: do you know what was the—and maybe
from the Ministry of Local Government—if there is a reason for transferring the National
Commission for Self-Help from the Ministry of the Community Development to the Ministry of
Local Government?
Ms. Mooleedhar: I am actually not aware why it was transferred but we have a number of other
special purpose companies which do similar work. So it might be because of the type of work that
is done—the infrastructure-type work—that they thought it might have been a better fit. As well as
the municipal corporations fall under the Ministry of Local Government so it might have just made
sense because of the way we are organized with the corporations, being able to liaise with Self-Help
in that way. So I think that might be it, but that is just speculation on my part.
Mr. Chairman: And have things improved since the transfer?
Mr. Baldeosingh: Mr. Chairman, since our focus is on a social service, our outreach had been
better at the Ministry of Community Development because of the structure of community
development officers discovering cases for intervention as well, and because of the interest of the
Community Development Ministry, or even if it happens to be the social development Ministry.
The Self-Help Commission had found a better fit in Community Development as opposed to
infrastructure development.
Mr. Chairman: Okay. Miss Hospedales?
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
82
Miss Hospedales: Mr. Chair, I did not get a response to the question that I had asked earlier
concerning whether or not there are monitoring evaluation procedures in place for the field officers,
and whether they are held to account, particularly where the field visits are concerned. I know Mr.
Mangaroo gave us a historical overview of persons who applied five years, et cetera, and why they
have not been given a response because they had to reapply. But there are still—and as I said, you
know, I am sitting here and I really have not gotten a glimmer of hope, because there are so many
numerous, numerous, numerous individuals who would have applied over the last two years, three
years, maximum, and have not gotten a response to date, not even a visit. So I am asking: do you
all have a system of monitoring and evaluation? Do you all hold these field officers to account?
How many visits are they required to do on a weekly basis, in terms of submitting the assessments
for those visits, et cetera?
Mr. Baldeosingh: Yes, there is a system. The senior project officer who manages the field officers
goes through a system of allocating projects for visit, and a time frame for feedback. The response
cycle would be—the percentage of people visited would always be a function of how many people
have applied, and the workload from the project officer. Sometimes because of our funding
situation we may have one field officer for two constituencies; we have one project officer for three
constituencies at times.
Currently the person who serves La Horquetta/Talparo also serves St. Augustine and Chaguanas
East. So when we look at the density of the constituency, we try to align our resources. Our
recurrent expenditure requests for the past three years have been $17 million to $18 million, and we
have received $9.3 million, $10.4 million and $10.5 million as recurrent expenses.
We are strapped in order to furnish officers with an occasional use of a rough terrain vehicle
when they have to access rough terrain. We are challenged to give the officer good handheld
electronic communication that they could communicate with the database at Self-Help and give a
response on the field. We are challenged by the volume of people waiting on the system, as you say,
but yet our senior manager allocates and measures the amount of people waiting, the applications,
and sends it out. But it is not that we have a dedicated project officer for every constituency, or two
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
83
officers per constituency.
In addition to visiting the applicant to assess the house the officer also has another set of
visits to determine when the material is delivered. So to solve the problem and to address the
dilemma that you described, if our recurrent expenditure is improved and we are able to hire more
field personnel, or providing rough terrain vehicles, or better communication, we could become
more efficient.
Miss Hospedales: Chair, is it possible that we can get from the Commission an organizational
structure and if within the structure you can identify where the vacancies are—significant vacancies
as well.
Mr. Baldeosingh: The establishment for the Self-Help Commission, unfortunately, dated back to
1997. When I became the CEO and I looked at what was approved at the Self-Help Commission,
it was an org. chart from 1997. So although I met 54 employees on a chart that approved less than
40 employees at the time, I met 54 employees. We have had to supplement our staff requirements
by using OJTs as well, because we are not funded to hire new staff to expand.
We have had our organizational chart as a proposal, firstly, at the Ministry of Community
Development and then at the Ministry of Local Government, eventually now approved by PMCD,
and that chart provides for an establishment of 96 persons. We expect that we would have that
official from the Ministry of Public Administration to take to Cabinet before the end of this calendar
year and, hopefully, we could present it at the mid-term review and hope to implement for the new
staffing requirements.
Mr. Small: Mr. Chair, I just want to go along the same path that Member Hospedales has been
going along. Do you have a budget in mind—a number in mind—that will allow you to clear the
backlog in the system and to sustain from you a higher rate of applications going forward? You may
not have it now but I wish to suggest that this is something that—you may surprise me; you may
already have that, but I think that as part of going forward—because I am very much focused on
going forward—the Commission should have those numbers in mind.
I am happy to hear PMCD has approved your structure. That raised another issue,
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
84
accommodation. I am not sure what your accommodation situation is. That raises a whole separate
issue, with accommodation and provisions and things for probably increasing your staff by 50 per
cent from what it is now. So that there are other issues that follow through that, but I am happy
that you have an approved structure.
What I am getting at also is, in terms of your forward planning I needed to understand from
you your forward planning. Yes, you have your structure. What are your plans in terms of what
you are requesting, you need to include for everything going forward, because I think it is not
sustainable to continue having X thousand applications pending, and I am vigorously against finding
a cut-off date and telling people to reapply. I am vigorously against that. I think there must be some
way to try to treat with it, and the way to treat with it is to get the resources to treat with it. There
is no way within your current resource base that you could manage it. So I accept that.
One other thing—and forgive me, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to appear as if I am
rambling. I think also in the data package that you are supplying to the Committee, I would like to
understand, however you structure it, I want to be able to say I can see the applications, dates, site
visit, ticked off; external agency checks, tick. So I would like to understand where applications are.
So that you receive 5,000—you have 5,000 in backlog—how many of those have had site visits, and
you can say, listen, 3,900 have site visits done, and then external agency checks to make sure that
everything is kosher with the external agencies.
I would like to make sure that there is some structure to the information you are supplying
that helps us to understand where those are. So it is a number, but within that number, things are
at various places, and without understanding where those things are, we may not be able to craft the
kind of recommendations that we need to craft. So that that is just, for me, a suggestion to the
members of the Commission.
Mr. Chairman: Just to supplement that, what I would also like to know is, is there a specific tool
that is used to monitor the activities of the field officer?
Mr. Baldeosingh: I would like to answer the more attractive question about the required funding.
In July 2011, when we prepared a Cabinet Note asking for funding to increase the house repair grant
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
85
from $10,000 to a maximum of $15,000 and to establish the emergency grant to a maximum of
$25,000, we then submitted that in order to implement and to service the backlog—not just the
backlog, but the 1,500-odd new applications that come in every year—that the requirement then
was $80 million on the IDF side and $18 million on the recurrent expenses side. In fiscal 2013 we
received $40 million, and in this financial year we are allocated $60 million. So we are not there yet,
but this year we forecast that we would move, as I say, towards issuing 2,000 of the house grants
and the emergency grants as necessary.
The mechanism for monitoring the activity on the field is really done based on an output
basis where the senior project officer is able to measure how many field visits are being done on the
person’s field day, and what is the quality of the information coming back in. But really to monitor
the field activity we would prefer the use of electronic resources. We would prefer that when we
expect someone to be in Matelot doing a field visit, that they submit their information from the
field, so it would be logged at the same time, and that we would not have to question whether they
were in Matelot, whether they done the job or not.
But apart from in the sales environment where a field salesman is still dependent on salaries
on commission, in a service organization such as ours, the field officer knows that his output does
not contribute to whether or not he gets his salary. But if we measure it against performance and
performance measurement and appraisals, then we are better able to extract the level of performance
that we require from the officers. But in order to do so, we should not be paying our field officers
$4,000 less than the Ministry of Social Development, or the Sugar Welfare Company. We should
not have field officers using their own vehicles and receiving a $2,000 travel allowance which cannot
even pay the installment on the vehicle.
We must be able to give the field officer a telephone grant in excess of $86.25—telephone
allowance—or in some cases, $200. Because when they are out on the field and they reach their
$200 they estimated, they stop calling us. We are unable to say, pay $300. We are unable to say that
we have set up a facility for a loan to purchase a car. We are unable to say, as I said, even to provide
a rough terrain vehicle for a project that is happening in Moruga or Matelot or Mayaro.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
86
So in order to extract the desired level of performance that would bring satisfaction to all
stakeholders, the Self-Help Commission has to be also funded and we also have to continue to show
that we could be trusted to execute on behalf of the State, if given the resources. So it is not that
we sit and wait and say we want funding; we are saying we are performing to near best that we could
do under the current circumstances.
For instance, the tracking of the forms and the grants is soon to be done on a bar coding
system. The funding for the bar coding system only came in fiscal 2014, so now we are able to say,
develop and implement a bar coding system. So that as the forms move through the system, the
bar coding scanners will track who has it, where it is at and what stage is it at. So some of the
improvements are low cost, such as bar coding, but in order to implement the bar coding system
for about $20,000, we must convert from Excel to Access, which requires training of staff as well.
So it is a bit prolonged, but we are moving there. I am just giving you an example of what we are
trying to do with the limited funding.
Miss Hospedales: I just want to ask about the low-cost housing grant. We heard about the number
of other grants but we did not hear about this one, which was approved, according to your notes,
in April of this—
Mr. Baldeosingh: The low-cost housing grants had been approved for the construction of 100
houses via a Cabinet Note. The Minister of Local Government distributed letters of invitation to
every Member of Parliament inviting them to send to us for two houses in every constituency. The
letter said that the response should be sent to the CEO of the Self-Help, and I have had the
responses from several MPs with the letter of invitation attached. So it is evident to me that the
letter went out to those who responded, and we have constructed the low-cost housing. The
low-cost housing is really for people who, if we give material for improving the household, they are
unable to do so.
Dr. Henry: Good morning to the panel; good morning to everyone. I was just wondering if you
have any information, or how are you audited? Is it just the Auditor General? Or how is your
organization monitored in any way? Do you get an independent audit or is it from a State agency?
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
87
Ms. Nandee: Yes. The Commission was given approval to recruit an external auditor. The
previous external auditor operated for over 10 years and only for the audit of 2012 we recruited new
auditors, and all the accounts have been audited up to—the final audit of 2012 should be signed off
maybe in a week or two. But all the accounts are audited to date.
Dr. Henry: Okay. And there is not any problems that they flagged that you could share with is;
any major issues?
Ms. Nandee: Well, the final management letter has not been signed off yet for the last audit, so as
soon as it is available it will be forwarded to Parliament on request.
Dr. Henry: On a different note, I see that in the document you submitted you said that you were
operating at 2006 level of salaries. How is that being addressed?
Mr. Baldeosingh: As I said before, we have been asking for $18 million over the last three fiscal
years in order to implement salary increases. We were unable to obtain such increases and we know
it is because we did not have the approved establishment and organizational chart as well. That
contributed to it. On our end, we have now—as I said, PMCD has approved the org. chart and we
could perhaps approach the mid-term review—approach the Ministry of Finance at the mid-term
review for funding to increase salaries. But it is a challenge that the last increase was in 2006.
Dr. Henry: Kind of along the same lines: what process did you go about in order to say, well you
want to go from 54 employees to 96? I think it is 96 you are requesting?
Mr. Baldeosingh: Yes. We looked at the volume of transactions it takes for the average number
of grants, so that we determine in the clerical staff, based on—and PMCD required it as well—the
number of transactions each department had averaged a number of transactions, and we approached
it from that; and for the field officers, the volume of applications and the cycle time for dealing with
applications. We do not want to return to PMCD within a five-year period so we forecasted for
three to five years what we believe would be needed at the Self-Help Commission.
Dr. Henry: On a slightly different note, some of the requirements that you are supposed to take
into consideration when you give these grants are like—I saw there that the person is supposed to
have a freehold property and all that sort of thing. How do you check those things? Or do you find
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
88
yourself running into problems where you might be providing help to people who are squatting?
11.35 a.m.
Mr. Baldeosingh: Self Help Commission requires the land tax receipt, a copy of the deed or the
Certificate of Comfort. In the absence of that, especially like in Tobago where land is handed down
without a deed, we accept a sworn affidavit from the person saying that they are living there
unencumbered for a period of years. Because it is low income applicants, we get many applications
from people who do not have land tenure. We have people who are squatting, who apply and we
cannot issue a grant because the State may be issuing building material one week and breaking the
house the following week. We have intervened—
Dr. Henry: Did you ever have any incidence like that?
Mr. Baldeosingh: Where we constructed a house and it was demolished?
Dr. Henry: Yes. Or helping somebody and it turns out that they are—
Mr. Baldeosingh: No! We were about to construct a house for an 87-year-old lady in Tobago
who is still occupying lands since 1962. After Flora she said she went to live there. We had a big
ceremony because we had the business community coming forward to contribute with us, to partner
with us to build the house, and before we started we received correspondence from an attorney
saying that there is a dispute over the land ownership. So we had not started that project. The lady
remained on the land. They have not been able to move her, but we are unable to improve her
home.
Sometimes there is the compassionate side of wanting to adhere to procedure, but we have had
squatters who—I remember there was a lady, who apparently has HIV and some of her children as
well. Her house was demolished in some sort of freak accident and she and her eight children were
sleeping under trees and so on. We had to say whether she is a squatter or she is a person with eight
little children who are already ill, and we have had to intervene in a case like that. So there are some
incidences where we have to make a compassionate decision.
Dr. Henry: But in cases like that, I know there has to be a toss-up between whether you send the
person to a different agency to deal with that type of situation, or you say, “Well listen, this is not
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
89
really our mandate, but we are still going to do it any way.”
Mr. Baldeosingh: At risk we would have had to do that. I am saying, when we look especially at
that case I am talking about, we could not say the community was coming together and they were
not building a concrete structure or anything. They were putting back up a wooden pile to make an
enclosure and a roof for the person. So a compassionate decision is in that case. But where we are
aware of squatters building concrete structures and needing help from the Self Help Commission,
we have not responded.
Miss Hospedales: Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Miss Hospedales: I just need to get clarity on something. You mentioned that communities can
apply to the Commission for community infrastructure development projects. How do you all
determine which community would actually receive such a grant? Because there are some
communities that may be what you would call middle and upper middle, but their roads are not
being maintained. In an instance like that, do you all go in, do an assessment, determine whether or
not you can assist; or would you just eliminate that particular community based on their geographic
location?
Mr. Baldeosingh: Because we want to partner with communities that would put out sweat equity,
many of the high and middle income communities will not partner with us because they will not put
the sweat equity. We focused on the low income communities because of the conditions of the
people living in low income communities. We are speaking of communities with earthen drains,
with mosquitoes, and other bacteria causing illness to small children, where we will want to put a
box drain in.
We may want to help pave a road that was once a squatting community or a land settlement area,
but to get that community to partner, the community must be able to come out on that Saturday
morning and help spread the dirt, the road material and so on. Most times the applications for the
self-help come from the low income communities as opposed to middle income or high income.
Miss Hospedales: Sir, I am aware of—I am sure you will get the application of a middle income
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
90
community that really needs intervention and they are willing to provide the labour.
Mr. Baldeosingh: Definitely.
Dr. Henry: Very good.
Mr. Chairman: One question. Now you mentioned that there is a backlog of applicants for grants,
is there a situation where you have hardware stores that have provided material that have not been
paid outside of the two months period of time? And if so, what sort of money are we talking about?
Mr. Baldeosingh: Yes, we do have claims coming forward from years before. In several instances,
not supported by a purchase order from the Self Help Commission are sometimes very difficult to
determine. Where we have—and this is prior to the October 2010 when the board was appointed
and prior when I came on as CEO. We have had instances of suppliers being asked to deliver
material on a verbal order. But then nothing was put in place in order to regularize that application,
or to issue a purchase order, or issue an approval. So we have suppliers with claims where they have
the invoice—they sent in an invoice.
We have been listed on Credit Chex from a supplier who sent in a claim to us for material he says
he delivered but he does not have a purchase order from us. We are saying to them: if the Self Help
Commission did not issue a purchase order, then why are we being asked to pay? But we also have
invoices from suppliers and we have supporting evidence from qualified applicants that they
received materials, and we are making all efforts in order to pay suppliers. But not all of our dated
invoices and our payables emanate from lack of procedural evidence. We actually also have a
backlog of—how much money, Ms. Nandee? About $200,000?—maybe about $200,000 from years
gone by that we are still dealing with, trying to determine where was the file, is there a file, is there
an approval, was there a purchase order, why was this issued without any procedure. But yet, we do
not want to deny the supplier if the goods have in fact been delivered.
Our internal audit committee of the board is currently reviewing 12 cases that were submitted by
the CEO to the board and asking: could we just pay these people because it is from 2005 to 2009
that these 12 purchase orders are being owed for? There was no procedure, but we have looked at
it and we have seen that people actually received material. So it is a dilemma that we face and the
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
91
board is responding to it.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Jeffrey, you have some questions?
Mr. Jeffrey: I appreciate the increase from $10,000 to $15,000 under the minor repair grant—and
it went to $15,000. Now, I recognized that the emergency repairs and reconstruction grant is
$25,000. I am trying to find out what is the rationale of limiting the minor repair grant to $15,000
but the emergency grant to $25,000. Because I could tell you in my own La Brea constituency right
now, it “ha” no earthquake, no nothing right now, but right now in that whole [Inaudible] I got that
$25,000 very easily. What is the rationale?
Mr. Baldeosingh: The minor repairs grant which people call the house grant was at $10,000, and
in the Cabinet Note where we established we wanted $80 million, we asked to take it to $15,000.
We have never been funded to take it up to $15,000 as the standard. Yet, what we tried to do at
that time was to match what was being issued by the other agencies, which was $15,000. So that
was your minor repairs grant. The emergency grant is up to $25,000 but hardly ever issued for that
amount, because it someone’s house is damaged in a windstorm, for instance, they will not normally
need $25,000 to repair the galvanize. So we look at that on a needs basis, what is damaged, how
could we help repair.
Sometimes the entire home is damaged—and I am saying this about applicants that come
to us. Sometimes their entire home is not valued at $15,000. If we give them $15,000 or $18,000
they build better than what they were living in as well. So we set it at $25,000 to accommodate when
somebody house is completely destroyed.
Dr. Henry: Fire victims.
Mr. Baldeosingh: Well the fire victims. Especially fire victims and we have had landslip victims
where the entire house was pulled down.
Mr. Jeffrey: “I ent too comfortable with that, eh.” I think that $15,000—I guess you may have a
funding problem to really find out if $25,000—but I could tell you we have some dire cases which
will swallow that $25,000 very easily in my La Brea constituency.
The second question I would like to ask is that this low cost housing grant. I understand
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
92
from Mr. Baldeosingh where you mentioned about the two houses per constituency, right—I know
about that—but as it is stated in the document here, I got the impression that $75,000 is available
for low cost housing and so on, and then $45,000 in the case of labour constraints. But hearing
about this two houses per constituency, I remember when I came up it was “ah” kind of rush thing.
Okay? But now, for example, if, for example, I have somebody in my constituency who want to
access this $75,000, what is the situation?
Mr. Baldeosingh: It was a one-off approval to build 100 of those houses, and in constructing the
Cabinet Note to get the approval I wrote it as $75,000 in materials and $45,000 in labour. So, we
were actually issuing a purchase order for $110,000 to someone to build that house. It was a tight
fit for a contractor to deliver a home at $110,000. If we have to return to that programme, we would
have to ask now for $125,000. So it was not a grant of $75,000 for material available outside of the
programme. But within the programme, we had valued the material at $75,000 and the labour at
$45,000.
When I wrote the draft Cabinet Note to be sent to the Ministry of Local Government, the
intention and the idea had been that there may be people coming forward and say they could provide
their own labour. We were appealing to CBOs and the NGOs. If they will provide the labour, then
we know the commitment from Self Help will only be $75,000 and we could perhaps do more with
our allocation that way. So we had broken it out that way, but it was never implemented that way.
Mr. Jeffrey: I want to come back to the community projects. Hot mix is not available under the
Self Help Programme?
Mr. Baldeosingh: If we see the need to do a road with hot mix and we contract it out with hot
mix, yes. But to give hot mix to a community organization to implement a road construction is not
always as straightforward as it appears. In that, it will require specific skill to use the hot mix. The
cold mix is very easy to use. We give the crusher run the gravel; the community spreads it; we roll
it; we send a roller; the community puts the tar onto it; then they spread the oil sands; we often give
a backhoe, a frontend loader to help spread it; and then it is rolled. So a community could come
out and implement a project like that. But to give a community hot mix to build a road, may not be
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
93
an easy task.
Mr. Jeffrey: Are you willing to give a commitment—that the $120,000—that you are writing up a
next Cabinet Note for an increase?
Mr. Baldeosingh: I would also like to say that although we went—we received an allocation of
$40 million for fiscal 2013. We were then transferred as of that financial year to the Ministry of
Local Government and we were asked to implement the project. So we prepared the Cabinet Note.
We got approval and the intention had been to get $12 million in the mid-term review which we did
not get in the mid-term review. Therefore, we were finding this additional $12 million out of $40
million.
So, yes, we implemented the project, and I want to say that the contractors initially got
$100,000 to build the houses. When they were struggling we went to $110,000, and then $115,000.
We have not had the funding to even reach $120,000 yet. But if we were returning to this
programme and asking for funding for it, we would be asking for $125,000.
Mr. Jeffrey: My final question has to do with sub-offices.
Mr. Baldeosingh: Before you ask the question could I just say though, at the board meeting held
on November 06, I was instructed by the board to prepare a Cabinet Note to seek approval for
continuing the low cost housing programme.
Mr. Jeffrey: What is that?
Mr. Baldeosingh: I was asked to prepare a draft Cabinet Note to ask for approval to continue the
low cost housing programme.
Mr. Jeffrey: Okay. Right! Good!
Mr. Baldeosingh: The board has directed it already.
Mr. Jeffrey: Okay. Very good! My last question has to do with the sub-offices. I am talking about
the south-western peninsula. You know, we have to come to San Fernando to drop in your forms
and so on. People from Icacos and so on—I mean, that is a tall order and I was wondering whether
or not a sub-office could not be established maybe in the Point Fortin area to facilitate poor people
in that area.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
94
Ms. Basdeo: Mr. Chairman, the difficulty as we have already highlighted is with funding. In order
to facilitate other persons who live at a greater distance, we have requested the assistance from the
parliamentary officers—from the MPs—and the forms can be dropped at the MPs office and then
to our office where we would facilitate them. So that is how we have broached that particular
subject.
Mr. Mangaroo: And through you, Mr. Chairman, I myself, I traverse all 41 constituencies as far as
possible. So to take care of that shortcoming of not having the sub-offices and so, I visit the
constituency offices as well, seeing members of the public and that do help quite a bit.
Miss Hospedales: Mr. Chair, it was just to get a little bit of clarity regarding the communities that
can apply for the community infrastructural development programmes. Is that the blue form that
they have to submit the application on?
Mr. Mangaroo: Yes.
Miss Hospedales: I just needed to get clarity.
Mr. Mangaroo: Yes, it is the blue form. Yes. We have identified the green is the MRG and the
blue is the CID forms.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, I have one final question. I am sorry to be coming back to it. I know you
had pointed out the challenges that the field officers have in terms of remuneration, vehicle and so
on, but is there a specific monitoring tool that is used to determine what is done, or you should rely
on the field officers bringing back information that you send them out to collect? Is it an ad hoc
arrangement or do you have a specific method by which the activities of the field officers are
monitored?
Mr. Baldeosingh: Based on what I have said before, we depend on the output. The audit
procedure, internally, provides a check as to whether the field officer was actually there and whether
the recipient is satisfied with the response from the Self Help Commission.
Mr. Chairman: So there is, for example, a questionnaire that each recipient is asked to fulfil to say,
okay, what they expected it was achieved, were they happy with it, something along that line?
Mr. Baldeosingh: No, currently—and again we return to the resources and the allocations, but
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
95
currently it is the internal auditor making a phone call and, if not satisfied, making a field visit.
Output from the project officer is what we measure on now and the internal audit is the—the Self
Help Commission operates with one internal auditor; and one OJT is assigned to internal auditor.
So—
Mr. Chairman: Sorry. This is for Trinidad and Tobago, or just Trinidad?
Mr. Baldeosingh: Trinidad and Tobago. So based on what we could do with such level of staffing,
is to make phone calls and occasional field visits. The internal audit also depends on the actual
pictures of the evidence of work done as well.
Mr. Chairman: Well if there are no other questions, I would like to thank you for appearing. Is
there anything else that you or anyone of your team would like to say that you have not covered, or
anything you will want to reinforce? Any final comments?
Mr. Mangaroo: I do not think any member has anything else to say.
Mr. Chairman: Any final plea? [Laughter]
Mr. Baldeosingh: Chairman, in examples of the community projects, Miss Hospedales—I know
that we actually had applications from within your constituency in the Maloney housing, and if we
find it is the responsibility of the HDC—remember, the footpaths connecting the buildings came
in as something that the community wanted us to contract and build. It is not that they wanted to
build for themselves.
So a project like that we said it seems to be the HDC’s responsibility. But the pedestrian
crossover outside—I think it is Building 5 from the highway—is something we know that the
community cannot build and we know it was necessary for the community to move from the
highway into the HDC compound. So we were able to contract that one. So those are examples of
how we look at—because I know a large part of your constituency has actually HDC or former
HDC structures, but where we intervened is on the outside to cross the drain from the highway into
the housing. But the footpaths that they were asking us to actually contract out we felt that that was
the responsibility of the HDC.
Mr. Mangaroo: In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you all for the opportunity to
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
96
better understand the operations of the National Commission for Self Help and thanks once again
for the opportunity.
Mr. Chairman: Okay. I would like on behalf of the committee, thank you for appearing and we
will be sending to you in writing request for additional information that was raised during the session.
I would also like to thank the media for appearing and the members of public for looking on.
This meeting is now suspended while we, the members, go to another area. Thank you.
11.58 a.m.: Meeting suspended.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
97
APPENDIX IV
CURRENT NCSHL ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE
98
99
APPENDIX V PROPOSED REVISED
ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE
100
101
APPENDIX VI DETAILS OF PROPOSED
ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
102
TABLE 3
Seven (7) New Divisions
New Divisions
Functions
1 Internal Audit To conducts audits of all systems, procedures and processes undertaken by the NCSHL. This Division will be managed by an Internal Auditor with the support of two (2) Auditing Assistants.
2 Legal Services To provide legal services and interpret legislation for the Board and Senior Management of the NCSHL. This Division is to be managed by a Corporate Secretary and is further strengthened by the addition of one Paralegal Assistant.
3 Procurement To ensure that the Company’s purchasing and contracting activities are such that all required equipment, tools, materials, goods and services, including consultancy services are procured at the best possible prices and quality. This Division will be managed by the Procurement Manager with the support of a Procurement Officer and two Assistant Buyers. The positions of Driver and Officer Attendant and IT Technician will be streamlined from the Executive Secretary to the Procurement Manager.
4 Finance To oversee the Commission’s overall accounting system and operations, to ensure that appropriate accounting records are kept and monthly financial statement are prepared accurately. The Project Accounts Division will be renamed Finance.
5 Human Resource Management
Undertakes all human resource management functions in the NCSHL.
6 Communications To plan and implement public relations programmes and projects designed to favorably publicize the Commission. The Public Relations function will be replaced by the Communications Division.
7 Project Management To plan and coordinate the analysis and evaluation of project requests to determine suitability for assistance, to ensure that all approved self-help projects are effectively monitored and reported on during execution. The Project Management division will be renamed the Programme Management Division
Details of Functions of the Units at the National Commission for Self Help Limited
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
103
1. INTERNAL AUDIT The role of the Internal Audit Unit is to conduct periodic audits to ensure that all policies,
systems and procedures are being effectively implemented and adhered to. The Internal
Auditor is responsible for reviewing hundreds of project files on a daily basis and visiting
project sites to ensure that there is compliance.
2. LEGAL The Company does not have an internal Legal Unit; therefore, Legal services are sourced
externally. The purpose of this unit is to provide in-house counsel on industrial relations,
environmental matters, regulatory issues, contracts and litigation. Currently, legal services are
outsourced at an average of $100,000 per year.
3. PROCUREMENT The following functions are undertaken by the Procurement Unit:
a. Purchasing of goods and services of the best quality and at suitable prices b. Supply Chain Management c. Contractor Prequalification d. Supervision of Procurement Staff e. Facility Management f. Vehicle Maintenance g. Supervision of Drivers h. Supervision of Office Attendants
4. FINANCE The Accounts Unit comprises two sections, one section deals with MMRGs, DPs, and
ERRAGs and the other deals with Community Centers. The following functions are
undertaken by the Accounts Units:
a. Purchase Orders for Development Programmes
Prepares and updates disbursement records for project files
Files copy of purchase orders
Updates disbursement records for cancelled purchase orders. b. Purchase Orders for Recurrent Expenditure
Enters on Peachtree
Files copy of purchase orders c. Recurrent and Development Expenditure
Checks for accuracy of invoices
Prepares payment vouchers
Issues cheques
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
104
Releases cheque to payee d. Salary Processing
Maintains increases and deduction records on Peachtree
Prepare and Review employees’ payroll
Prepare detailed listing for bank remittances and salary deductions
Issues cheques to banks or other beneficiaries
Remits P.A.Y.E., Health Surcharge, NIS Insurance and Credit Union payments e. Bank Reconciliation
Compare returned cheques to bank statement
Compare bank statement to general ledger
Update bank reconciliation statement
Prepares and posts journal for bank charges
Liaises with bank to have errors corrected
f. Cumulative Development Programme Performance Reports
Updates information for each type of payment made
Prepares summary report of payments by project type, current month expenditure and expenditure for the previous months of the current financial year
g. Monthly development Programme Expenditure Report
Updates information for each type of payment made h. Suppliers Queries
Reviews and Records suppliers’ statements
Reviews outstanding bills i. Outstanding Invoices
Updates information under each project type according to invoices received and payments made
j. Prepares for Audit of Financial Statements
Reconciles the Group Health Insurance Account
Reconciles the Accounts Payables Account
Reconciles Accounts Receivable Account k. Funding
Prepares a listing of new projects by type to support request for funds
Completes bank deposit slip and source of funds document for bank upon receipt of funds
Updates Register upon receipt of funds l. Reports
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
105
Monthly status reports of the performance of the Infrastructure Development Programme
Quarterly request for Funds under Recurrent Expenditure and Infrastructural Development Fund with supporting documents
Annual preparation of draft estimates under Recurrent Expenditure and Infrastructural Development Fund
Semi-annual reports on the Social Sector Investment Progress for the Ministry of the People and Social Development
Responds to ad hoc request from line Ministry and Ministry of Finance
Monthly Cash flow Reports for the Ministry of Finance
Quarterly Financial Reports for the Ministry of Finance
Distributed Audited Financial Reports Annually to the Ministry of Finance
5. HR The following functions are undertaken by the HR unit:
a. Performance Appraisal review and Processing b. Recruitment c. Training and Development d. Personnel data entry and records maintenance e. Policy Development f. Employee Benefits (Health Care Insurance, Life Insurance and Workmen’s
Compensation)
6. COMMUNICATIONS The following functions fall under the Communications Unit:
a. Management of the office of the Chairman (appointments, meetings, follow up on projects, responds to Members of Parliament and Regional Corporations).
b. Preparation of speeches, notes and briefs for the Chairman c. Arrangements for all Board and Approval Meetings d. Company brochures and tokens e. Staff uniforms f. Press releases and all media related functions g. Company’s website h. Management of Customer Complaints i. Management of projects which have not been recommended for funding.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
106
The following activities were undertaken by the Communications Unit for the year 2012:
a. Commissioning of the Hydroponic Project in Cedros b. Opening of the road project of Edoo Trace, Ben Lomond c. Commissioning of the Flush Toilets Project in Granville d. Opening of the pedestrian bridge at Beetham Gardens e. Distribution of Minor Repair and Reconstruction Grants (MRRGs) in Tobago f. Distribution of Minor Repair and Reconstruction Grants (MRRGs) at the South
Regional Office g. 25th Anniversary Interfaith Service h. 25th Anniversary Gala and Awards Ceremony i. Distribution of Minor Repair and Reconstruction Grants (MRRGs) to fire victims at
Point Cumana j. Ministry of the People Direct Impact Outreach Programme in La Horquetta / Talparo k. Ministry of Community Development Outreach Programme in Caigual l. Community Development Fund (CDF) Community Outreach Programme at the
Preysal Community Centre m. Community Outreach Programme at Macoya Health Centre n. Retreat for Board Members in Tobago o. Training Seminar for staff of all MPs offices p. Meeting of all NCSHL’s Contractors and Suppliers q. Meeting with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) r. Staff Seminar s. Christmas Luncheon for Staff
7. PROJECT MANAGEMENT The Project Management oversees the implementation of the following projects:
a. Minor Repair and Reconstruction Grants (MRRG) b. Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Assistance Grants (ERRAG) c. Development Programmes (DP) d. Community Centers e. Activity Centers f. Starter Houses
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
107
TABLE 4
Twenty (20) New Positions
Position / Title Function
1 Internal Auditor To conduct periodic audits to ensure that all policies, systems and procedures are being effectively implemented and adhered to.
2 Procurement Officer To ensure that the Company’s purchasing and contracting activities are such that all required equipment, tools, materials, goods and services, including consultancy services are procured at the best possible prices and quality.
3 Accounts Clerk To perform accounting, clerical and related tasks including, accounting records in accordance with approved policies, procedures and accepted accounting practices. Activities, which are essential to the running of the organization include updating the general ledger, bank reconciliation, bills payable, filing, payroll and preparing vouchers for payment etc.
4 HR Manager To provide overall management and coordination of the activities and staff, direct the formulation and implementation of HRM strategies and programmes to enhance the overall performance of the Commission. The number of employees has grown from 25 to 53 since 1997 and it is estimated to increase to approximately 95 within the next three years.
5 Communications Manager
To plan and implement public relations programmes and projects designed to favorably publicize the Commission. The role of the Communications Manager includes delivering a range of professional communications activities (media and public relations, public affairs, resident communication, stakeholder engagement, publications, marketing and internal communications) to the highest quality and standard.
6 Senior Project Officer For the effective management and supervision of Project Officers and Assistant Project Officers. Currently, there are three Senior Project Officers with an average of six (6) subordinates each. There is estimated to be approximately twenty-eight (28) Project Officers and Assistant Project Officers within the next three (3) years.
7 Administrative Assistant
To provide administrative support to approximately twenty-eight (28) Project Officers and Assistant Project Officer and oversee ten (10) clerical staff who serve both internal and external (approximately 100 per day) customers.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
108
8 Corporate Secretary To provide in-house counsel on industrial relations, environmental matters, regulatory issues, contracts and litigation. Currently, legal services are outsourced at an average of $100,000 per year.
9 Paralegal Assistant To provide paralegal support to the Corporate Secretary in activities such as researching laws, investigating facts, preparing pleadings, opinions and briefs, maintaining case files and assisting in the preparation of legal documents.
10 Auditing Assistant To provide support to the Internal Auditor to ensure that all policies, systems and procedures are in accordance with regulations.
11 Assistant Buyer To provide support to the Internal Auditor to ensure that all policies, systems and procedures are in accordance with regulations.
12 IT Technician To provide hardware and software maintenance, training and consultation and recommendations about future planning and development of resources in an effective and efficient manner to ensure maximum access to and implementation of technology services and resources. Currently, the IT service is outsourced at a cost of approximately $9,000 per month.
13 Accounts Manager To oversee the Commission’s overall accounting system and operations, to ensure that appropriate accounting records are kept and monthly financial statement are prepared accurately. The Commission is responsible for managing funds of approximately $50 million per year, for recurrent and Development Programme projects.
14 Senior Accounts Clerk To provide support to the Assistant Accountant in the administration of the Commission’s accounting systems and oversee the Accounts Clerks (approximately 9).
15 HR Assistant To provide clerical support to the HR Manager as it pertains to acquisition, training and development and retention of employees. The number of employees has grown from 25 to 53 since 1997 and it is estimated to increase to approximately 96 within the next three years.
16 Communications Specialists
The Communications Specialist is responsible for the coordination and administration of media programmes and projects relating to the various aspects of Communications, Events Management and Community Outreach of the NCSHL.
17 Communications Assistant
To assist the Communications Manager in a wide range of communications and public relations tasks.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
109
18 Health and Safety Officer
To ensure that all the Commission’s activities are compliant with Health and Safety regulations. Currently, this service is outsourced at close to $500,000 per year.
19 Civil Engineer To plan and oversee the various construction activities of the Commission and to ensure that structures are constructed in the safest, sturdiest manner. Currently this service is outsourced at a cost of approximately $1 million per year.
20 Procurement Manager To oversee the functions of the Procurement Department and ensure that the Commission’s purchasing and contracting activities are procured at the best possible prices and quality.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
110
APPENDIX VII SUMMARY OF APPROVED BUT NOT YET IMPLEMENTED CID
FILES
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
111
TABLE 5
Summary of Approved Not Yet Implemented CID Files
Constituency Number of Applications Value $
Arima 39 4,967,348
Arouca North 6 1,574,769
Arouca South 1 683,100
Arouca/Maloney 4 532,070
Barataria/San Juan 29 1,224,279
Caroni Central 15 3,464,685
Caroni East 8 1,614,935
Chaguanas East 7 924,874
Chaguanas West 1 98,525
Couva North 22 6,765,296
Couva South 20 2,084,168
Cumuto/Manzanilla 5 704,115
D'abadie/Omera 6 719,368
Diego Martin Central 12 788,647
Diego Martin East 17 1,138,005
Diego Martin West 13 1,117,631
Fyzabad 16 1,700,855
La Brea 10 1,331,856
La Horquetta/Talparo 0 0
Laventille East 44 2,723,195
Laventille West 1 98,525
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
112
Lopinot/Bon Air 4 443,199
Mayaro 14 1,185,759
Moruga Tableland 6 526,975
Naparima 41 6,104,003
Nariva 2 308,679
Oropouche East 9 520,206
Oropouche West 12 3,950,818
Point Fortin 13 2,197,731
Pointe A Pierre 54 14,707,691
Port of Spain North/St. Ann's West 13 1,065,676
Port of Spain South 11 1,297,533
Princes Town 40 5,177,069
San Fernando East 20 1,869,334
San Fernando West 7 1,849,721
Siparia 22 3,336,431
St. Ann's East 34 2,389,232
St. Augustine 5 398,304
St. Joseph 14 1,563,654
Tabaquite 10 1,768,153
TETE 7 1,128,162.95
Toco/ Manzanilla 4 1,552,679
Toco/Sangre Grande 24 6,382,632
Tunapuna 14 2,593,968
TWTW 5 364,810
Total 661 95,810,503
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
113
APPENDIX VIII SUMMARY OF APPROVED BUT
NOT YET IMPLEMENTED MRRG FILES
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
114
TABLE 6
Summary of Approved Not Yet Implemented MRRG Files
Constituency Number of Applications Value $
Arima 183 1,830,000
Arouca/Maloney 41 410,000
Barataria/San Juan 80 800,000
Caroni Central 87 870,000
Caroni East 67 670,000
Chaguanas East 93 9,300,000
Chaguanas West 24 240,000
Couva North 120 1,200,000
Couva South 102 1,020,000
Cumuto/Manzanilla 77 770,000
D'abadie/Omera 27 270,000
Diego Martin Central 66 660,000
Diego Martin East 142 1,420,000
Diego Martin West 79 790,000
Fyzabad 114 1,140,000
La Brea 90 900,000
La Horquetta/Talparo 25 250,000
Laventille East 174 1,740,000
Laventille West 150 1,500,000
Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)
115
Lopinot/Bon Air 29 290,000
Mayaro 244 2,440,000
Moruga Tableland 91 910,000
Naparima 214 2,140,000
Nariva 3 30,000
Oropouche East 133 1,330,000
Oropouche West 113 1,130,000
Point Fortin 286 2,860,000
Pointe A Pierre 162 1,620,000
Port of Spain North/St. Ann's West 48 480,000
Port of Spain South 144 1,440,000
Princes Town 341 3,410,000
San Fernando East 163 1,630,000
San Fernando West 79 790,000
Siparia 289 2,890,000
St. Ann's East 133 1,330,000
St. Augustine 40 400,000
St. Joseph 103 1,030,000
Tabaquite 180 1,800,000
TETE 130 1,300,000
Toco/ Manzanilla 97 970,000
Toco/Sangre Grande 275 2,750,000
Tunapuna 70 700,000
TWTW 190 1,900,000
Total 5,298 61,350,000