WOODEN LADDER FOR FIRE SERVICES, SLIDING DOOR FOR LANDSLIDE

THE Trinidad and Tobago Fire Services stand almost alone in using wooden ladders.

The recent revelation that the authorities had spent $1 million on wooden ladders places the T&T Fire Services in the company of the San Francisco Fire Department in the United States.

But there is a justifiable reason for the Americans using wooden ladders.

The community they serve has many high-voltage electrical wires, and wooden ladders do not conduct electricity.

But the San Francisco ladders are custom-made by skilled craftsmen in their own workshop.

They are sturdy, crafted from strong lumber, and are larger than aluminum ladders, requiring several fire officers to lift them.

They are fit for purpose.

But fire services around the world use aluminum ladders because they are durable, cheap, won’t catch fire, and are easy to move around.

The T&T Fire Services had long stopped using wooden ladders, until the recent purchase, for which no one is taking responsibility.

Most intriguingly, National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds posed with the wooden ladders when they were delivered and called for a probe only when there was a public uproar several months later.

All relevant public officials have washed their hands off the debacle.

The fiasco ties into many other instances of wastage of public funds, some of which are exposed in annual reports of the Auditor General.

The most recent report identified several such cases, in addition to the absence of proper authorisation for the purchases.

Some items were “incorrectly brought,” the Auditor General reported.

An earlier report told of two purchase orders being issued for certain items, leading to double acquisitions.

 Some years ago, sliding doors were bought for repairs of a landslide.

There have been instances of unnecessary items being ordered for public housing projects.

In one case, construction material was shifted to a housing project of a public official.

Wrong sizes of building items have been deliberately bought with taxpayers’ funds.

There have been manipulation of invoices and scandalous purchases of items that are suited for domestic homes instead of public projects.

A commission of enquiry into a costly venture uncovered scandalous wastage, irregularities, and impropriety.

Two dog kennels were unnecessarily ordered for that project.

At another project, mild steel bars were bought when the venture called for heavy-duty material.

At yet another undertaking, several superfluous items – such as a tarpaulin tent – were placed on the order list.

The lack of competitive bidding is common.

In many expensive projects, there have been sole selections of favoured goods and services providers.

The wooden ladders scandal fits snugly into that longstanding pattern of recklessness or corruption in public purchases, leading to wild wastage of taxpayers’ money.

As with every previous example, no one would be called to account.