Right of reply

The Ceylon Electricity Board Engineers’ Union (CEBEU) responding to a news item that appeared in The Sunday Times on July 15, 2007 under the headline “Members oppose CEB Union’s Stance”, has sent the following clarification;

1) Your news item said that the CEBEU is ‘threatening trade union action against a Ministerial Committee appointed to investigate into the purchase of eight crane trucks using tsunami funds which do not meet CEB technical specification’.The CEBEU has not threatened any such TU action. However, there is a serious concern as to why such a hi-powered committee has been appointed and as we learn, a public hearing is been contemplated as the very first step. Usually, a preliminary investigation is conducted and other steps are taken to establish whether there is any ground for further action. Except for speculation by various fractions, it has not been concluded by anyone competent that the equipment concerned ‘do not meet CEB technical specification’ as claimed. This creates a doubt whether someone has already decided that the alleged parties are guilty.

2) CEBEU is not against impartial and properly conducted inquiries by personal competent to comprehend the technicalities and grasp the management context under which engineers arrive at the decision in question. But we would vehemently oppose any move to target our members with malicious intentions using inquiries as a weapon. We are seeing attempts by authorities to ‘soften’ engineers to get technical decisions and professional judgments the way they want.

3) The reference to the utilization of tsunami funds for this purchase may apply that the funds have been misused. The CEBEU wishes to clarify that as done at times of other natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes, the restoration of electricity supply to tsunami affected areas was also carried out by CEB very quickly using its own resources. The reimbursement has been used by CEB later to acquire vital equipment and material.

4) As per your news item, your stating that the CEB has spent a ‘staggering’ a 52 million rupees for the purchase and trucks ‘are now unutilized’.However, the CEBEU learns that it has been the lowest evaluated offer and the next offer has been at an additional 53 million rupees which means at more than double the price of the purchased item. Also, it is totally incorrect to say that the trucks are unutilized. They have been handed over to the distribution divisions and are now used for the intended field work.

5) CE Engineers’ Union has not taken any decision so far to refrain from attending Technical Evaluation Committees (TECs). Thus, it is totally incorrect to say that our members have opposed the Union stance as there is no such decision to oppose to. Besides, if the members oppose, the CEBEU cannot and would not take such a decision.

* Their unwillingness to participate in TECs as their professional judgments are being questioned and ridiculed by various personnel including politicians who are incompetent to understand them. That is why the membership unanimously decided at the last AGM to empower the executive committee to decide to withdraw from TECs, if required.

6) Your news item goes on to say that the crane trucks have been acquired ‘for drilling power poles when it is disturbed and the truck should be capable of drilling the pole.’ This is a false statement that is misleading the public. Firstly, the power poles are not drilled by trucks or otherwise after they are manufactured. Secondly, the auger trucks that have been purchased are for the purpose of digging pits and electing poles and not for ‘drilling the poles’.

CEB is an organisation that has an annual turnover of over 80 billion rupees. When managing and organization of such magnitude, decisions have to be taken promptly as indecisions can sometimes be costlier than an incorrect decision. As a result of a very unhealthy culture, that is brewing in the organisation due to public ridicule and harassments meted out by certain committees and individuals, the CEB officials are now inclined to take safe decisions that may be perceived to be correct and easy to defend rather than using their professional judgment to take proper decisions that are beneficial in the long run. As professionals the engineers take decisions considering various technical aspects which are not understood, unfortunately, by some of the officers who carry out investigations. This puts the engineers in very unpleasant and embarrassing situations.

Thus, CEBEU wishes to reiterate that while we are not against inquiries being held on any activity, we reserve our right to resort to TEU action in case we find our members are unduly harassed for taking decisions to the best of their professional judgement that are beneficial to the CEB and the country as a whole (even though such decisions may jeopardize the kick backs some authorities anticipate).

Reporter’s note

Though the CEBEU says it has not threatened to take any TU action against a ministerial committee appointed to probe alleged malpractices in connection with purchase of 12 crane trucks using tsunami funds, the Newsletter sent out a few days ago, the CEBEU (Vol 2007/08, Issue 03) to its members states under the headline “Response to Harrassments” that it was decided that CEBEU will protest the move to appoint the above committee and request the Minister to immediately stop the functioning of the committee. The newsletter goes on to state further that CEBEU members would pull out from all technical evaluation committees (TECs) if the authorities decide to continue with the investigation. The above decision of CEBEU conveyed to its members has been taken by the Executive Committee of CEBEU two weeks ago.

The letter by CEBEU also asserts that anyone competent has not concluded that the above crane trucks did not meet CEB’s technical specifications. Contrary to the claim by CEBEU, The Sunday Times learns that a senior mechanical engineer conversant with the equipment in question has recommended to CEB Management in February this year not to accept these crane trucks in question. He had been asked by the CEB Management to submit his recommendations when questions were raised by some engineers after the delivery of the equipment by the supplier. It is understood that the report by this senior mechanical engineer states clearly the reasons why this equipment does not meet CEB’s specifications and why the equipment is not suitable for the work carried out by CEB. We also understand that the head of CEB’s Procurement Division, who is a senior electrical engineer, had earlier refused to release payment for these crane trucks on the ground that they did not meet CEB’s specifications. To the best of our knowledge, no one has challenged the findings of these two engineers to date.

CEBEU states in its letter that it is “not against an inquiry by personnel competent to comprehend the technicalities and grasp the management context under which engineers arrive at decisions.” According to the CEB Act No. 17 of 1969 [clause 8(3)], the Minister of Power and Energy has the right to have any matter investigated by an independent party appointed by the Minister. The present committee comprises two retired Appeal Court judges and a mechanical engineering professor from University of Moratuwa.

Despite CEBEU’s claims, The Sunday Times learns that these trucks have been distributed mostly to areas which were not affected by the 2004 tsunami and no engineer actually in charge of this equipment has so far agreed to certify in writing that they were suitable for CEB’s distribution operation and maintenance work. Both CEB and its sister organisation LECO use a significant number of crane/auger trucks in its distribution operation and maintenance works. This is the first time that this particular design has been purchased by CEB. The Sunday Times learns that some engineers appointed to serve in the TEC of this tender have protested to the management and asked to be relieved of the TEC duty claiming that they did not have any experience or knowledge on the subject. We also understand that repeated calls by some TEC members to appoint a mechanical engineer to the TEC had been ignored by the CEB Management. According to our information, at no time had the TEC consulted those engineers who are actual users of this equipment, even after the decision was taken to purchase a design that had never been tried before in the CEB.

The misuse of tsunami funds by CEB has been raised by the COPE at several of its meetings during the past few months. It is alleged that a substantial portion of material and equipment (vehicles, etc.) purchased under tsunami funds have been diverted to areas which were not affected by the tsunami. The COPE has also questioned the purchase of luxury vehicles and numerous foreign trips made by CEB engineers using funds allocated to the tsunami rehabilitation works.