The letter is a response to a critical editorial published by The Gleaner newspaper regarding the author's involvement with the Community Development Fund. In 3 sentences: The author rejects the claims made in the editorial, arguing that proper procedures were followed and projects were identified in consultation with the Community Development Fund. He accuses The Gleaner of an unwarranted attack due to their aversion to the CDF, and maintains that as an elected MP he is entitled to utilize the fund to benefit constituents across the riding. The author pledges to continue working to deliver on the mandate given to him by the people of East Central St. Catherine through appropriate use of the Community Development Fund.

1. 1
To: The Editor
The pen they say is mightier than the sword. It is for this very reason that persons
who wield the pen ought to exercise more care in what they write. Fairness and truth must
be the order of the day.
In the same vein, for transparency, the public should be advised beyond the
disclaimer below the editorial as to who the author of the piece is. It is part of natural justice
that the accused should know and face his accuser.
It is public knowledge that the Gleaner as an institution is engaged in a crusade
against the Community Development Fund. The basis of its objection to the fund is that it is
pork.
For the uninitiated pork or pork barrel is the use of government funds for projects
designed to win votes.
To put it very mildly, the Gleaner Editorial of March 19, 2012 is quite uncharitable. It
is patently clear that the author of the piece simply “ran with the story”. There was not even
the courtesy of a call to get a comment from me in order to bring some balance and indeed
substance. In short the editorial is a travesty and a disservice to the readers and an abuse
of freedom of the press.

2. 2
I am not anyone’s pawn and certainly not the Gleaner’s to be captured in the cross
fire of its offensive against the Community Development Fund. In fact, I completely reject
the editorial’s caricature of me as being the week’s “en passant, obligatory bad example”.
The fact is, at no time did I in persona submit any invoices for projects. Invoices
which were submitted were done so by service providers to the Social Development
Commission, the implementing agency for the projects.
Where the error was made is that, those invoices were addressed to the Member of
Parliament as opposed to the Social Development Commission or East Central St.
Catherine Constituency.
Of further note, is that the invoices which were submitted were approved and
stamped by the Social Development Commission for forward passage unto the Community
Development Fund.
As a new Member of Parliament, I took it upon myself to sit with the Community
Development Fund Unit to ascertain the correct procedures in order to avoid the very
situation which is now unfolding.
It appears to me that there was some misunderstanding between the Community
Development Fund and the Social Development Commission as it pertains to procedure, as
my team was told squarely by the SDC that the request made of them to develop a budget
for the project submitted was not the remit of the SDC.

3. 3
In any event, the projects identified were standard and done in consultation with the
Community Development Fund. I was therefore surprised to learn from previous stories
carried by the Gleaner that Mrs. Scott Blair “reported” me to Parliament, especially in light of
the fact that she ought to have known that requests for invoices must not be directed to the
Member of Parliament.
It is beyond me, that I am being “singled out” when it is clear that new members of
Parliament are having difficulties with the implementation of projects. Clearly this would
speak to deficiencies in effectively communicating what the proper procedures are. Rather
than errant politicians running amok.
The attempt by the author of the opinion to dismiss what are the facts is
disingenuous at best. Actions were taken in accordance with the “guidance” which was
given. Therefore, “That everything has been above board” is precisely the point. The public
must be disabused of the view that all politicians enter the political fray in order to further
their own nest or that of friends.
It is the aversion which the Gleaner has of the CDF why it has set its face firmly
against the fund. In the instant case, I for one reject any implication that there was any
attempt to misuse or misdirect public funds for political outcomes.
At no point, have I assumed the job of a civil servant. The ignorance of the writer is
revealed here. Beyond legislation and policy making, the Member of Parliament has
constituents who elected him to serve them in other respects. The Member of Parliament is

4. 4
entitled to hire a Consultant to the CDF and that person reports to the Member of
Parliament directly, not the Government of Jamaica or the CDF Unit.
Civil Servants are not elected by the people. In that regard, I was not acting ultra
vires with respect to the CDF, having regards to the identification of projects. As a matter of
fact, I am one of two (2) Members of Parliament who got a specific mandate from my
constituents as there was an endorsement of the manifesto which was placed before them
on the 29th November, 2011.
The author reveals the real reason for this unwarranted attack upon me in the
seventh paragraph where he/she states, inter alia, “…Mr. Brown is joining his fellows in the
rendering and delivery of pork which, fundamentally, is what the $1.2 billion in the CDF is
about….” the rest of the paragraph can be described as a vulgar rant.
What is most upsetting is that the project, for which this unnecessary and ill directed
opinion is focused, is one of tremendous benefit to the residents in the constituency,
deliberately placed in what would be considered a strong support base for the opposing
party. The symbol being sent here is that I am the Member of Parliament for the entire
constituency whether the residents voted for me or not.
Well, the Gleaner and I will not see eye-to-eye on this issue. I support the
Community Development Fund which is a successor to the Social and Economic Support
Programme. I am an unapologetic advocate for more funds to be provided to the Fund so

5. 5
that the elected representative(s) can bring about meaningful change in their constituency.
There are sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure that abuse doesn’t take place.
East Central Saint Catherine is a new constituency and as such no allocation would
have been made nor would there be residual funds from projects previously approved. For
this reason a special provision of Three (3) Million Dollars was made for the new
constituencies. Not one cent of which has been spent inappropriately.
Having regards to the allocation of the fund allocated to East Central Saint
Catherine, the areas covered were Welfare, Education, Social Housing, Sports, a Career
Fair and Expo as well as securing the services of a Consultant.
The residents of East Central Saint Catherine can rest assured that as Member of
Parliament I will not be deterred in my efforts to deliver on the mandate of the people.
Arnaldo Brown
Member of Parliament
East Central Saint Catherine