VRA Board reacts to Committee's Report

THE Board of Directors of the Volta River Authority (VRA) has said the selective release of the findings of the VRA Review Committee by the Minister of Energy, Dr Paa Kwesi Nduom, and the orchestrated attacks on the board in the media to create the impression that the board is all the problem in the authority is most regrettable.

In a statement issued and signed by their chairman, Dr Jones Ofori-Atta, the members said as of June 25, 2003 the board had not seen a copy of the report upon which the minister made his recommendations to the President, “nor were our comments solicited on any finding in the report to enable the minister form a fair view and considered recommendations to the President”.

The statement noted that reviewing the committee report in the Crusading Guide of June 24- 30, 2003, Dr Nduom intimated as follows :

• that the board did not exercise enough control over policy-making and the activities of the CEO to ensure good results;

• that the board had not taken adequate steps to resolve the conflict at VRA that had existed during its tenure; “Indeed the board itself was seen as being engaged in conflict with the CEO;

• that the board had placed itself in a position that made it impossible for the body to control the activities of the CEO for the benefit of the authority.

But these are easily rebutted, the board members said, adding that the committee itself found inherent conflict in the Act establishing the VRA (Volta River Development Act 1961) which gave too much power to the Chief Executive and, therefore, recommended immediate amendment of the Act.

In view of this, the board wondered how anybody can lay blame of ineffectiveness at the door of the board or also charge it with the offence of engagement in conflict with the CEO, when inevitably such conflict was in relation to the respective roles of the Chief Executive and the board under the Act.

The statement said the second charge that the board had not taken adequate steps to resolve the conflict at VRA that had existed during its tenure is both untrue and ridiculous.

It said the minister quotes the committee as follows: “The committee concluded that the management style (not specific decisions to bring about change to VRA) is the main factor that has caused the industrial conflict between the workers and management”. What was the board expected to do to enforce a benign change in the lifestyle of a 50-year-old CEO?

The statement said the board does not recognise the third accusation and we reject it entirely. The onus is on the committee to establish this unambiguously and beyond reasonable doubt.

According to the statement, the impression given in the media that the board has approved huge allowances for themselves is unfounded.

Below is the full text of the statement:

The selective release of the findings of the VRA Review Committee by the Minister of Energy Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom and the orchestrated attacks on the Board mounted in the Media to create the impression that the VRA Board is all the problem in the VRA is most regrettable.

As of today we have not seen a copy of the Report upon which the Minister made his recommendations to the President, nor were our comments solicited on any finding in the Report to enable the Minister found a fair and considered recommendation to the President.

Reviewing the Committee Report in the CRUSADING GUIDE of June 24-30, 2003 Dr. Nduom intimated as follows:

1. The Board did not exercise enough control over policy-making and the activities of the CEO to ensure good results.
2. The Board had not taken adequate steps to resolve the conflict at VRA that had existed during its tenure. 'Indeed, the Board itself was seen as being engaged in conflict with the CEO."
3. The Board had placed itself in a position that made it impossible for the body to control the activities of the CEO for the benefit of the Authority.

But these are easily rebutted. The Committee itself found inherent conflict, in the Act establishing the VRA (Volta River Development Act 1961, Act 46). The Committee found that the ACT gave too much power to the Chief Executive. The Committee itself recommended immediate amendment of the Act. In view of this how can anybody seriously lay blame of ineffectiveness on the Board or a charge of engagement in conflict with the CEO, when inevitably such conflict was in relation to the respective roles of the Chief Executive and the Board under the Act.

The second charge that the Board had not taken adequate steps to resolve the conflict at VRA that had existed during its tenure is both untrue and ridiculous. The Minister quotes the Committee as follows "The Committee concluded that the management style (not specific decisions to bring about change to VRA) is the main factor that has caused the industrial conflict between the workers and management." What was the Board expected to do to enforce a benign change in the lifestyle of a 50 year old CEO.

We do not recognize the third accusation and we reject it entirely. The onus is on the Committee to establish this unambiguously and beyond any reasonable doubt.

The impression given in the media that the Board has approved huge allowances for themselves is unfounded. Below are the allowances for the Board approved by Management in October 2001.

MONTHLY:
Chairman - C1,400,000.00/net
Members - C 1, 120,000,00/net

COMMITTEE MEETINGS:
Chairman - C1,120,000.00/net
Members - C840,000.00/net

TRANSPORT:
Equivalent to 10 gallons of fuel (Accra)
Equivalent of 20 gallons of fuel (Koforidua)
Equivalent of 40 gallons of fuel (Kumasi)

The proposals by Management to review Board Members' Allowances for 2003 have not been approved by the Board.

Allowances for Board Members traveling outside Ghana on official business are based on Government approved rates.