The Auditor General has raised concern about the Firearm Licensing Authority, FLA’s failure to comply with fixed term contract officer policy guidelines, as it relates to Chief Executive Officer, Shane Dalling.
The matter was highlighted in a report tabled in Parliament, yesterday (January 11).
Pamela Monroe Ellis noted that the FLA is exposed to the risk of incurring additional termination costs, if the CEO’s contract is terminated prematurely.
This as the termination clause detailed in the contract is not in keeping with the fixed term contract officers policy guidelines, issued by the Ministry of Finance.
The termination clause in the CEO’s five-year contract dated April 29, 2020, states that “either party may terminate this agreement by giving to the other two months’ notice in writing and that termination by the Firearm Licensing Authority before completion of the contract period, shall be accompanied by payment of gross salary for the remaining period of the contract, but not exceeding two and half year’s gross salary, plus prorated gratuity”.
The Auditor General said this provision represents a material deviation from the fixed term contract officers policy guidelines, and requires approval from the Finance Ministry.
Mrs. Monroe Ellis said the FLA did not obtain the requisite approval from the Finance Ministry.
As such, the matter will be referred to the Finance Ministry, for review.
In another issue involving Mr. Dalling, the Auditor General revealed that she is yet to get a response from the Financial Secretary, regarding a surchargable offence.
The CEO, as well as the Director of Finance and Administration are the responsible officers, who must now account for an over 8 million dollar loss, following over-payment to 5 former employees of the FLA.
The contracts of the former employees had been terminated and they were paid notice pay and gratuity, in excess of the amount due.
Upon review, it was determined that the separation payments to the five former FLA employees were not in keeping with Finance Ministry regulations, resulting in a financial loss to government.
It was concluded that the case under review is a surchargeable offence.
The matter was reported to the Financial Secretary, with a recommendation for the recovery of the value of loss.