WASA, a pawn in political war

The Editor: The WASA saga continues, as a daily newspaper saw the purchase of a $.5m car for the Authority’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Mr Errol Grimes, as that important, to warrant the lead story on Easter Sunday, as if to lay Easter eggs.

The article seems not to be in isolation to the other media stories and the consistent allegations made over the past few months by the UNC Opposition, that has put the Authority on the national centre stage and strangely the Government on the defensive. When the leader of any organisation is under such continuous attack, everyone, all the stakeholders within the organisation should wake up and take note. It is for this reason I am compelled to remove myself as a bystander and express a view as an employee. There exists some difficulty to discern from the article if the CEO should or should not receive the $.5m car and no comparison is made as to what exists in the community of CEO’s.

The real question should be what are the type of cars used by CEO’s in T&T?  What type of cars are used by CEO’s in the Utilities? What are the price tags for cars used by CEO’s? The group of employees I associate with always questioned why Mr Grimes drove his old station wagon to work. Embarrassment has been the order of the day and it was a welcome sign when in the corridors of WASA it was heard that a car fitting the office of a CEO was being purchased. A Rover (not purchased by WASA) and an alleged $700,000 Mercedes Benz (purchased through WASA) were owned and driven by the last two CEO’s under the same financial constraints presently experienced by WASA. They were accepted as the standard type of cars for the office of the CEO. Why is it different for Mr Grimes?

Why is he denied a vehicle commensurate with his office to fulfil the task of transforming the Authority?  Why is the benefit standard for WASA being lowered? Is it a signal to WASA workers that benefits agreed to by Management could now be removed or taken back?  If our leader is not given the car that rightfully belongs to him, what will stop the introduction of a policy to reduce benefits to the lower ranks? Prior to the coming of Severn Trent, the salary of WASA CEO was around $11,000 per month. An Institutional Strengthening Team (IST) was brought on board as a prelude to the Severn Trent management contract, the CEO salary for that arrangement was increased to around $45,000 per month.

The CEO salary under the Severn Trent period increased to around $160,000 per month and under the UNC period the salary was levelled around $36,000 per month (with the Mercedes Benz). Is anybody questioning that process?  These developments meant a paradigm shift in the price to manage our water industry. It is interesting to note that the financial state of WASA was even worse than what it is today. A newspaper report indicated that WASA’s rationale for the increase was based on a 40 percent “parity wage” increase for daily rated employees and 37 percent “relativity” increase for monthly paids, in the concluded 1999-2001 Collective Agreements. These agreements significantly reduced the disparity in salaries between the employees and the executive management. 

To rectify the anomaly, the management seemed to have followed the same principle used by the Public Service Association (PSA) to rectify the relativity with daily paids when the disparity between the daily rated employees was narrowed due to the daily rated “parity” agreement. Maybe they were not advised to establish statistical parity as against a ballpark figure. But there appear to be some justification for an adjustment. No one has questioned the rational used by WASA, to adjust the executive salaries, or if it was justified. This has been conveniently left out of the equation and failure to follow due process has been advanced. Grimes and company did not wake up and give themselves an increase. What if on examination, justification for upward adjustments is necessary?  Will it be unreasonable to ask that the process (if flawed) be corrected to facilitate adjustments?'

WASA is once again up against the odds but we will survive the crusade which from all indication is personalised and focuses on WASA’s leader Mr Grimes, questioning his integrity which by extension blemishes and stigmatises the organisation and those therein. The resilience of all employees will ensure WASA survives this onslaught. The media continues their unbalance and non-investigative reporting that passes for journalism. The opposition, with all the corruption clouds hanging over their heads are now the moral crusaders. Ganga Singh and Wade Mark are deliberately exploiting the inexperience of Senator, the Honourable Rennie Dumas, Minister of Public Utilities and the Environment, as a political strategy to remove the corruption focus from the UNC to the PNM using WASA and hoping the Bob Lindquist probe will turn up something. They should not be allowed to succeed.

Joan  Bachew
Committed Employee
Mt Lambert