Bartlett denies SLB ‘seminar’ was rogue decision
Published:Saturday | January 26, 2019 | 12:00 AM
Former chairman of the Students’ Loan Bureau (SLB), St Aubyn Bartlett, yesterday denied that the state-run agency splashed out nearly $2.5 million on a staff retreat without approval of the board of directors nearly a month after it was revealed that the lender’s stock of non-performing loans had ballooned to $11 billion.
Bartlett also repudiated allegations that he unilaterally approved the contract extension of the bureau’s executive director, Monica Brown.
“Not at all. The board members were consulted on the issue of an extension for Mrs Brown. The only mistake is that a vote was not taken at an official meeting for it to be minuted, but all the members were contacted and consulted on the matter, and they all expressed no problem or objections to the said extension. Nobody had any objections to the extension,” stressed Bartlett.
He told The Gleaner that the board realised how the SLB’s non-performing loans skyrocketed after poring over an auditor general’s report.
“And so we (board and management) had begun looking into the report of the auditor general, and out of that we recognised certain things because the SLB changed its calculation of interest in about April 2006 to the reducing balance, and after that is when a lot of the high level of delinquency started to arise.
“Remember now that the SLB has a moratorium period of between three and up to six years, and if interest is calculated on the remaining balance, and interest is calculated every month, then if the students who are on the moratorium are not making any payments, then imagine the interest that’s been calculated will be calculated on a higher principal,” Bartlett said.
TACIT APPROVAL
Bartlett said that the board and management thought it prudent that all staff be made aware of its findings, hence the decision to host the “enrichment seminar”.
The retreat was reportedly held at an all-inclusive hotel in Montego Bay, St James, in November 2018, and board members were invited via email to attend even though they had not been asked to approve the expenditure.
“The members of the board had agreed to attend this same seminar. All of them were in agreement to attend. I repeat, it was not a staff retreat. It was a staff-enrichment seminar at a location outside of Kingston, and people would have to stay over. All this was approved by the board,” said Bartlett.
“If I made a mistake by interpreting that agreement as being an approval from the board members, then I can only say that I have to accept the consequences,” he added.