NEPA backs down
Enforcement inspector gets full salary as investigations continue re housing development breach
Published:Sunday | February 11, 2024 | 12:12 AMLivern Barrett - Senior Staff Reporter
The National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) appears to have backed away on its decision to slash 20 per cent from the salary of the enforcement inspector who first reported breaches detected at a housing development undertaken by a senior public officer and his wife.
NEPA is the country’s environmental regulatory authority.
The inspector, Rhyan Henry, was informed, via a letter dated January 17, that he was being placed on interdiction with 80 per cent of his salary to facilitate a “disciplinary investigation” into “allegation of gross misconduct”, The Sunday Gleaner first reported.
But, Lambert Brown, the industrial relations consultant representing Henry, pushed back against the actions taken by NEPA, charging that the interdiction and salary cut were unlawful and oppressive.
Responding to Brown’s assertions, NEPA disclosed last week that Henry received his full compensation for the month of January.
Brown confirmed that the enforcement inspector received his full salary.
“And based on the status of the investigation, no instructions have been issued for his compensation to be deducted for the month of February,” said Karlene Hamilton-Reid, director of human resource management and development at NEPA, in a letter dispatched to Brown last Monday.
There was no explanation for the change of course.
Calls by The Sunday Gleaner to Peter Knight, chief executive officer of NEPA, went unanswered on Friday.
Hamilton-Reid also indicated that the “disciplinary investigation” – which has since been turned over to independent industrial relations consultant Ralston Peters – was “projected” to end last Friday.
Up to late yesterday, it was unclear whether the probe was completed.
FIRST TO FLAG BREACHES
Three years ago, Henry was the first NEPA inspector to flag breaches at the controversial Charlemont Drive, St Andrew, apartment complex constructed by Mark Barnett, president of the state-owned National Water Commission, his wife Annette, and developer Phillip Smith.
A report by the Integrity Commission (IC) revealed that on December 17, 2020, during a seventh visit to the construction site, he detected that the layout had deviated from the drawings that had been approved, received, and date-stamped by NEPA on July 3, 2019.
The commission is Jamaica’s main anti-corruption body.
It concluded, in a scathing 90-page report made public last October, that the apartment complex, now listed as completed, has six two-bedroom units and six three-bedroom units, “in breach of the permits issued”.
The building, planning and environmental permits issued to the Barnetts on August 13, 2019 were for the construction of two three-storey blocks consisting of 12 one-bedroom units, the IC report revealed.
The breaches uncovered by Henry, along with others found earlier, were outlined to the Barnetts in a warning letter written by Carlene Martin, acting manager of NEPA’s enforcement division.
Nearly nine months later, Morjorn Wallock, director of NEPA’s legal and enforcement division, wrote to the Barnetts, requesting that they submit applications to the relevant authorities seeking an amendment “consequent on the project’s departure from what was approved”.
The Barnetts did not comply, despite an undertaking from Annette Barnett that they would, the IC report said.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in their legal opinion, indicated that the allegations against the NWC boss and his wife – an attorney – support the filing of criminal charges against them, but said the 12-month window for doing so had already elapsed.
However, NEPA, in their January 17 letter to Henry, blamed the findings of the IC investigation on his “gross misconduct”.
NEPA said the “disciplinary investigation” was based on allegations that Henry brought the regulatory authority into “disrepute” because of his failure to “satisfactorily” carry out his monitoring duties at the Charlemont complex.
The agency signalled, too, that Henry was being investigated for “inefficient work performance” for allegedly failing to carry out established enforcement procedures “with respect to monitoring” the project.
‘MUST NOT BE USED AS A SCAPEGOAT’
Legal experts and public commentators have questioned whether Henry is the sacrificial lamb for NEPA’s failure to initiate a criminal prosecution for the breaches within the 12-month window stipulated in its legislative framework.
Brown went further, questioning whether the investigation involves any other NEPA employee, including the CEO.
“What is not clear is whether or not this investigation is aimed solely at Mr Henry or whether it involves every member of staff, including the CEO, who had some responsibility for what has become the Charlemont scandal,” the industrial relations consultant asked in a letter to Hamilton-Reid on Thursday.
“We would hate to believe that Mr Henry is being persecuted for answering the request to speak with the nation’s highest anti-corruption body. A fair investigation must include all potential players in this matter. Mr Henry cannot and must not be used as a scapegoat.”