Newsday TT

NOW that he has given the facts, we can understand why Public Utilities Minister Rennie Dumas had so much difficulty in producing answers to Opposition questions in the Senate on the personnel employed by the Water and Sewerage Authority. We find the details of his reply, particularly with respect to the remuneration paid to WASA's top executives, quite shocking, prompting a number of additional and relevant questions about which the Minister has remained conveniently silent.

To begin with, we are quite flabbergasted by the astronomical salaries paid to the expatriate officials of Severn Trent, the British water treatment firm, which carried out a contract to manage the utility from April 1996 to March 1999.

Just look at the salaries these officials collected every single month: Project Director (CEO) -$245,700; Senior Director -$212,700; Director -$185,100; Senior Manager -$167,100; Middle Manager - $151,200; Technician - $125,700; Supervisor -$94,500.

We recall the controversy which this contract created as several questions were raised about the capacity and track record of this British company. Looking back, we must ask what did the UNC administration have in mind when it engaged these foreign "experts"? What, in fact, did Severn Trent do for WASA and what benefits did the utility derive from these highly paid expatriates?

But even after Severn Trent's people left our shores in March 1999, the changes that had been made in WASA's top management structure to accommodate them remained. Instead of abolishing them, the UNC decided to keep the contract positions of Chief Executive Officer, Directors and Assistant Directors in addition to the positions of Executive Director and Divisional Managers which formed the permanent organisational structure of the utility and fell under the purview of the Salaries Review Commission.

When the contract positions were filled by local "candidates", given salaries way above those of the SRC, an absurd dichotomy appeared in the top management of WASA. Although the Minister was not asked for the Severn Trent figures, he included them apparently to provide some kind of comparison with the salaries paid to the locally contracted officers.

However, what we find really mystifying in the Minister's reply is his failure to explain how, under his government, the already high remuneration paid to the Authority's contract officers was jacked up even higher! For example, the basic salary of the CEO was increased from $36,000 to $50,000 a month with, in addition, monthly vehicle and housing allowances of $10,000 and $5,000 respectively.

What is the tremendous responsibility, the great burden, the momentous mission, carried out by the head of WASA, contract or no contract, which entitles him to remuneration way above that of the Prime Minister's $25,000 or the Chief Justice's $21,500 or the Chief of Defence Staff's $15,000 or the Commissioner of Police's $15,000 a month? In fact, why were these contract posts not abolished after Severn Trent?

And since, as the Minister himself pointed out, these increased remuneration packages were required to be submitted to him for consideration by the Public Sector Negotiations Committee, why were they not subject to this process? Did he not know about them? Were they, reminiscent of what transpired under a former regime, the result of the unilateral action of the WASA board? Now that instructions have been given for the remuneration packages to revert to their previous levels, we expect that better sense will prevail.