I believe that a lot
of people watch football, knowing its rules and regulations. Have you ever seen
a player taking the ball in his hand walking around the football field? Have
you?! Of course you didn’t, but I wonder what if he actually did? Will he be booked?!
Or sent off!? So it’s a matter of the type of punishment he would get, agreed!!
So why is it that when
someone like Dr. Diboll gets terminated for violating the terms of his contract
he is called a Human Rights activist who was punished for his freedom of speech
practice?!
It is explicitly
mentioned in each and every contract in the country that
an expat employee should not be interfering in any kind of political movement
nor in any sectarian matter.
On the other hand, there
are rules and regulations related to the sick and annual leaves in every
company even the small ones.
When someone is
absent for a certain number of days, he/she will be questioned and might even
be terminated… was that hard to explain to people?!
And now there is the
article that Dr. Diboll wrote about the Polytechnic last month,
regarding people not trusting Ernst & Young;
The last case filed took place in 2010, don’t you believe that they might have a different management by now?!
The case of Lehman
Brothers was dismissed in June 2012; Ernest & Young didn’t pay a single
dollar to Lehman Brothers.
John Scott, a name that
is remembered whenever the Bahrain Polytechnic’s name is brought up; his money
scandal was documented by Ernst & Young and the Royal Audit Court.
Just to let you know
that Mike Diboll is calling it a “Media Propaganda”
He recruited his
friends without any qualifications; he forced the girls who worked there not to
wear Abbayas!! He bought his wife a cigar from the Polytechnic’s budget!!
So if Mr. Diboll in
one of his articles defended Mr. Scott by saying that Ernst & Young were
being sued by a number of companies then why doesn’t Mr. Scott do the same to
prove to the Bahrainis that he’s not what we think he is - a person who took
advantage of his position?
Let’s take a look at
the history of Mr. Scott and why he cannot defend himself against Ernst &
Young & the Royal Audit Court report:
Thursday, 2 December
2004, 12:09 pm
Column: Association of University Staff
Column: Association of University Staff
“CPIT boss must be sacked, says English
The National Party spokesman on Education, Bill
English, has called for the sacking of the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute
of Technology CEO, John Scott, following the release of an Auditor-General’s
report into possible conflicts of interest in CPIT’s Cool-IT community
education computing programme. He has also called on former Christchurch Mayor
Vicki Buck, who has been at the centre of the controversy, to disclose how much
money she has received from her association with a private company involved
with the programme.
The Auditor-General was asked to investigate the
management of conflicts of interest at CPIT after allegations that Vicki Buck,
CPIT’s Development Manager, was also a director and shareholder of Brylton
Software, CPIT’s joint-venture partner in running the Cool IT programme. CPIT
had drawn more than $13.8 million in public funding for running the courses, of
which more than $6 million went to Brylton Software.
Mr English has called for action after the
Auditor-General’s report showed that, while there was no evidence that Ms Buck
had acted to misuse her position, the CPIT allowed her to be put in a position
which gave her the opportunity to use her CPIT-funded time, resources and
position to enhance the value of her private financial interests in Brylton
Software. The Auditor-General’s report found that the existence of this
conflict of interest raised a serious management issue for CPIT which had not
been dealt with properly. It said that the CPIT should have excluded Ms Buck
from anything other than the most peripheral involvement in the Cool-IT
programme, and declined to consent to her appointment to the joint-venture
committee as a representative of Brylton Software.
CPIT management told the Auditor-General that Ms
Buck’s conflict of interest was “adjudged not to be material or problematic”,
and had subsequently failed to adequately inform its Council about it. It went
on to say that John Scott believed it was up to him to manage the conflicts,
and there was nothing wrong with the situation.
Mr English said that Mr Scott had grossly
mismanaged the conflict of interest at the heart of the Cool-IT scandal. “If
the Council doesn’t sack him, Minister Steve Maharey should sack his
appointments to Council,” he said. They wasted $15 million of public money on a
bogus course, and $6 million of that ended up in a company in which a senior
staff member had a “keen awareness and involvement” according to the report. If
the CPIT Council won’t bring John Scott to account, Maharey must hold the
Council itself accountable and sent them packing.”
In response to a statement from Ms Buck saying
she had made no money from the Cool-IT programme, Mr English has called on her
to disclose Brylton’s profits and dividend policy, and to declare she will not
share in those profits.
The Auditor-General’s report can be found at http://www.oag.govt.nz/HomePageFolders/Publications/cpit-cool/default.html”
Full Article http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED0412/S00007.htm
That’s what happened in the New
Zealand Parliament:
