Recently in Accountability Category

Mr. Burch has a problem with private sector employees using their corporate email addresses to sign political petitions:

"Forty six of them came from people who used their private e-mail addresses and were fine," he said. "Three of them came from persons who used their firm's e-mail. Where I come from, I think that's not normal.

"I wouldn't use the Government's e-mail system to send something personal. I think it was wrong."

...

"I'm not questioning anyone's right to their opinion," he said. "I just felt and I feel that if you use your employer's e-mail for anything personal, you have got to be wrong."

I have a question then.

How does he explain away using an explicitly apolitical civil servant from the Department of Immigration to pursue someone's employer over their political views - an act of political intimidation?

Private sector employees or employers have no obligation to remain apolitical, civil servants absolutely do.

If I were the recipients of these letters from a civil servant I'd be making a complaint to the Head of the Civil Service and the Ombudsman.

And one last point: this is the same Minister who sent out emails to people's corporate email addresses soliciting their political views on term limits.

When the PLP start bleating like sheep about 'white privilege', 'oligarchies' and 'aristocracy' you can be sure that they've lost the argument or an election is on the way, or both.

In the case of the Corporation of Hamilton I believe the outgoing Premier has lost the argument and has simply retrenched, making this a bogus fight against a non-existent foe. The tried and true PLP rally cry.

Kathy Gibbons' op-ed struck the right tone; the Corporations are a de facto separation of powers, a check and balance on the potential dangers of bad or malicious national/local blended government.

Bermuda is small yes, but the difference in fiscal management between the debt ridden national government and debt free municipalities is stark. Yes, reform is needed, that much is agreed by all sides - although the PLP refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit the narrative.

The PLP's aggressive stance now on the issue is amplified because they have been out PR'd by the Corporation. It's become personal. This is the outgoing Premier's final high-profile item, his last attempt to manufacture a legacy beyond scandals and controversies after seeing his own personal liabilities doom the gaming bill and has his backbench in a muted, but very, real revolt.

The question over this bill is just how public of a middle finger do his MPs want to show him as he leaves office? Generally the PLP have been loathe to criticise in public, although it's clear they're counting down the days to his departure as much if not more than everyone else.

The Corporation of Hamilton has played their cards very well so far, but I'm not so sure the rally/march tomorrow was one they should have played. The key is turnout - size and who.

During the Uighur debacle, Dr. Brown was clearly on the ropes - until the protest, when he was successfully able to pivot and portray the protest as some angry white mob (which it was not). He even dragged his wife out as a prop in front of the crowd, hoping to create a scene. Nice stage management indeed, all subtleties cast aside with the mic set up in front of the Sally Basset statue.

At that point the pressure quickly shifted onto the PLP MPs to not publicly side with this faux 'angry white mob', and they all capitulated although they fundamentally agreed with the protester sentiment as evidenced by the speeches condemning the outgoing Premier in Parliament.

The question tomorrow with the march/rally is does this box in the PLP backbench, with the party discipline and intimidation clearly being amped up in a big way and I understand all kinds of backroom deals being cut.

If this bill is voted down tomorrow, the outgoing Premier will have been dealt a very public humiliation on his last day in Parliament. He will do everything and anything to prevent that. Hence the racial refrain that this has now taken because he knows he can't win it on the argument.

There's few things less interesting than discussion on interest rates, but the Finance Minister let fly a shockingly disingenuous howler in defence of her $500M bond placement:

If we look the Opposition's record of long term borrowing when the United Bermuda Party was in government, we find that the coupon or interest rate was higher than what Government achieved on the recent bond. For example, in 1994, the United Bermuda Party Government attracted a rate of 7.59% on a senior debt issue. A Progressive Labour Party government refinanced that facility at a lower rate of 5.39% in 2004.

Another example, in 1997, the United Bermuda Party government attracted a rate of 6.72% on an issue with a ten year maturity. You will note that both issues were single bullet maturities and not staggered as the Opposition said should have been done with the recent issue. In any event, that ten year facility was refinanced at 5.73% in 2007.

The simple truth is that no administration in Bermuda has been able to obtain a long term interest rate on debt instruments below 5%.

The Finance Minister is smarter than this, so we can only chalk this up to desperation.

The claim is that the PLP achieved better deals than the UBP's (much smaller) long term debt by refinancing in 2004 and 2007 and the bond placement in 2010. It's slightly material to the discussion that this claim is made in a complete vacuum, with no mention whatsoever of the interest rate environment at the time.

A quick search would show that the 90s were a high interest rate period, about double that of 2004 and much, much higher than today. Citing 2007, where the Finance Minister professes some skill in refinancing at 1% lower than in 1997, simply reflects nothing more than the difference in the prime rate. No skill there. If that's all it takes to be Finance Minister then sign me up.

Hopefully Ms. Cox is aware that the comparison metric between interest rates is not the absolute number but the spread over treasuries. The UBP's debt, which the PLP refinanced, are both in line with the prime rate.

The rate the Finance Minister achieved in the just placed bond however was about 2.25% over prime (3.25%). That is what was achieved in an environment where the fed is lending at as low as they can go, pretty much zero.

So a high school level analysis reveals that the examples the Finance Minister cites in isolation as examples of her outperforming the UBP were nothing of the sort, and the placement just completed is paying a higher premium over prime. The exact opposite conclusion she wants us to draw.

Reading the article from HSBC Bermuda CEO Phil Butterfield you can just picture him rubbing his hands together at all the long term debt placements he sees on the horizon that will generate some chunky fees for his firm (which is who his responsibility is to):

Mr. Butterfield said the success of the sale was significant for Bermuda, which would now be known among major investors on the capital markets. "This positions us well, as a jurisdiction, to potentially go back to this same group of investors in the future," Mr. Butterfield said.

"That is significant, when you think about the infrastructure challenges we face, like the Causeway, the Airport and possibly the relocation of the docks, for example."

This is a bankers dream.

The suggestion that over-subscription is a vote of confidence in the island is absurd. This isn't a popularity contest, it's business. Investors saw a high interest rate and leaped at it.

Why the decision to up-size from $400M to $500M was made at the same offered rate is beyond me.

If you generated over $2B of interest at 5.6% for $400M, surely when it came to an additional $100M the prudent course would have been to make this smaller offering at a lower rate. Why go out at the same level?

It would appear, that with all the back and forth about how well the placement was managed, that at the end of the day we were looked at as just another Caribbean bond. In fact the placement is pretty much identical to the terms of the Cayman Island's recent offering.

Bear in mind though that Caymans were unable to make payroll a few months ago. We were seen as the same risk as that.

As a finance type friend told me yesterday:

If she is even thinking of comparing today's bond rate to 1994 she is seriously on crack as rates in 2010 are even lower still.

No getting away from the fact that our recent bond was issued at a spread to
Treasuries attributed to crap sovereign credits and NOT AA.

And finally, I couldn't help but chuckle at the idea that going to the debt markets was somehow a prestige event for the island. I'm thinking it's more prestigious to not have to borrow in order to meet your obligations.

But what's done is done.

The conversation going forward now has to be about a) living within our means and prioritising what we can and cannot afford, and b) setting about saving $500M over the next ten years and $28M per year in interest to service the facility. It would be nice to pay that down early and save all that interest.

Shame the Government blew almost a $100M on Berkeley and the cruise ship terminal isn't it?

Sorry. The statement today from the Finance Ministry on the two week inability of the Auditor General to access the Financial Information Management System defies belief.

Mark me down as not buying it.

If it was simply a simple systems permissions problem why did it take the extreme measure of a press release from the Auditor to shame the Ministry into quickly giving her access again?

This doesn't pass the smell test.

Whatever remaining credibility and integrity Paula Cox is hoping to bring to Office of Premier, which appears to be hers to lose, must surely have just gone up in smoke with the appalling news today that the Finance Ministry has been blocking the Auditor General's constitutional access to the Financial Information Management System for two weeks - and quickly rectified once the Auditor General went public.

This is intolerable. Not to mention unconstitutional.

What doesn't she want the Auditor - and the public - to know?

A few quick thoughts on the predictable racial redirect after the first ever open Public Accounts Committee meeting last week - which focused on the Auditor Generals' (that's plural - two Auditor Generals) concerns about Global Hue's handling of Bermuda's Tourism account:

• It's pretty cynical to turn a forward step like opening up secret committee meetings into a backwards argument about race.

  I loved this quote from the outgoing Premier: "One of the reasons I supported the public meeting of this committee was to allow the Bermudian public to see what happens when a black-owned company secures a coveted contract from the Bermuda Government."

  It goes without saying that if the outgoing Premier saw opening up the Public Accounts Committee meetings as an opportunity to expose racism, he'd have done it the second he could. Immediately. Stat. Instead it took years of cries for transparency from the Opposition UBP, commentators and the public.



• The PLP say that "Bermuda is lucky to have an advertising firm of the caliber of GlobalHue working for us." Really? Lucky? I thought we hired them.

  Regardless of what you think of Global Hue, this kind of statement suggests that the power dynamic is screwed up here.

  Who's calling the shots? It would appear to be Global Hue judging by their assault on Glenn Bean and his subsequent firing with massive redundancy package. Surely Bermuda should be hiring people who feel like they're lucky to be working for us? Who's working for whom here?



• It isn't automatically racism to question why a contract wasn't put out to competitive bid if the owner of the 'lucky' sole-bidding firm is black.

  It would however be racism to award a contract to a firm solely because it is black owned.

  Not to mention the fact that this black owned firm is a non-Bermudian one. This raises the question of whether the outgoing Premier is using taxpayer funds for an affirmative action program for non-Bermudians?

  Now you can argue about righting historical inequities through affirmative action, or economic empowerment, or whatever term you prefer. But it would be a novel argument that Bermudian taxpayer dollars should be deployed to empower groups historically disadvantaged by non-Bermudian governments. That's a discussion the Bermudian public perhaps should be invited to have first.



• If it's racist to criticize non-tendered contracts for foreign black owned firms, and racist to criticize non-tendered contracts to white owned firms of friends and members of the PLP, then competitively bid contracts are pretty much automatically racist by the PLP's thinking. The rest of the world might be interested in this.


• Surely the PLP are aware that this line of criticism that they're so outraged about - specifically crony capitalism, racially driven contract awarding and whites joining the party out of economic interest - is precisely, precisely, the criticism that they lodged, and continue to lodge at the UBP.

  There's no two ways about this. The PLP are on the receiving end of their own tactics, and they don't like it one bit. Howling with derision in response is very unbecoming.

  The PLP proved the concept here. The protests at these kinds of accusations rings hollow. This has been their bread and butter argument since time immemorial. They should be very familiar and I would have thought that the pioneers of these tactics would be better at responding to them.



• Surely Zane DeSilva could have done better than this:

  "If the Opposition is going to pick on the Government over contracts not put to tender, let me name a few others. The Rugby Classic. The Philadelphia Triathlon. The Royal Bermuda Yacht Club. All of these were sole sourced by this Government. Why aren't they objecting that these haven't gone to tender? "

  Um? Huh? The World Rugby Classic? The Philadelphia Triathalon and the Yacht Club (Gold Cup?)? Let me get this right? 3 events which the Department of Tourism decided to sponsor (not source) are examples of non-bid contracts?

  What the hell. Let's do this.

  As usual he's got it backwards. These 3 examples are events created by private entities and Tourism was offered the chance to support them as they benefit Bermuda.

  If the Department of Tourism created these events and asked The Rugby Classic, or Philadelphia Companies (subsidiary of Tokio Marine) or The Gold Cup sailing to sponsor, then he could make this claim. But of course they didn't. These were brought to Tourism. Those three entities are event organisers, not service providers.

  Which of course means that Zane Desilva couldn't come up with one example of a legitimate 'sole-sourced' (ie. non tendered) contract, he had to fabricate them.

All that can be said about a Cabinet Member shredding up a letter from the Mayor of the capital and returning it to sender is that it is deeply, deeply embarrassing for Bermuda - a supposedly sophisticated financial centre governed by reasonable people in a democratic manner.

How much more of this can Bermuda take?

I can only presume that with the outgoing Premier on his international farewell tour - completing his taxpayer funded bucket list - that there is a leadership vacuum, and adult supervision is desperately needed.

Anywhere else, anywhere else that had a Cabinet Minister behave in such way, would see that Minister gone by noon.

But no. Not here. The classy, stable Bermuda that we knew is becoming a distant memory.

Autocrats are incompatible with democracies.

The self-inflicted social and economic decline continues at an accelerated pace. Bermuda needs new, responsible political leadership that is capable of dialogue.

But if the Premier's mail isn't opened like everyone's is, imagine the danger he would have been in as no-one would have allegedly intercepted that alleged bullet in the alleged mail.

I'm sure that on Friday we will be treated to one of David "No one is above the law" and "I want to live in a law-abiding country" Burch's trademark political Tourette's outbursts about the Premier's demand that he - and his wife - be held above the law by customs officers.

The fourth column I ever wrote for The Royal Gazette was titled "We're living in the dark ages", and discussed the antiquated way Parliament conducted itself.

It was refreshing then when I tuned in yesterday, admittedly still only available via audio, to hear a proper Parliamentary Question Period as well as 30 minute limits on each speaker during the debate on gambling. The time limit made every speaker more focused and prevented much of the usual pointless rambling and grandstanding.

The Royal Gazette covers more of the imminent changes, including a digital archive and Hansard, which are all very overdue and welcome.

Credit has to go to John Barritt who has been relentlessly pushing for this for years.

It is also worth pointing out that the new website Bernews.com was live-blogging the gambling debate, shortly after which The Royal Gazette website had frequent updates as well.

Bermuda's Pariament and media are finally moving out of the dark ages into the electronic age.

Gambling is back, right on schedule, and it promises to be the dominant discussion of the next several months.

I am generally ambivalent on gambling, I don't see it as a tourism silver bullet or a social death knell, and while I have little interest in it myself I do have some serious affiliated concerns.

Firstly, if the sordid allegations, however gently put, of attempted political insider dealing around the Southlands/Morgan's Point swap/development are remotely accurate, we have a glimpse into what will come in a Bermuda that lacks even the most rudimentary ethics and disclosure laws for our politicians and developers.

So I cannot support the introduction of gambling and a major casino development or developments without the precursor of comprehensive public access to information, campaign finance laws and ethical oversight bodies. There's been too much sleaze in the past few years, including the use of Trusts with public projects at the Courthouse and the Bermuda Cement Company hijacked and handed to a crony just to name two.

If we want gambling we must act like a modern well regulated and highly ethical jurisdiction. Bermuda under Brown is light years from that.

Secondly, we must accept that if legalised and widespread gambling is to come to Bermuda it will ruin lives, and Government will have to earmark substantial amounts of their casino revenues for social programs and facilities to counter the effects on some of our population.

Alex Scott is correct that the Gambling Green paper was a sales job, but so was Alex Scott's Bermuda Independence Commission.

That much was expected. We all knew the recommendation would be in favour. The question is do we have the requisite checks and balances and oversight ability for what will be a cash printing machine that has and will attract all sorts of unsavory elements, including unscrupulous politicians of which we have no shortage lately.

The answer to that is a resounding no.

Reform first. Gambling might follow.

It is par for the course that the outgoing Premier is creating legislation for a media council to address complaints about the media while he and his colleagues are subject to absolutely no oversight body to address complaints about their behaviour (including blatant abuse of the broadcast regulations during the 2007 election campaign which the PLP appointed broadcast commission refused to address).

Just this past week we've seen filibustering and refusals to answer Parliamentary Questions not to mention the outgoing Premier himself threatening physical violence against an Opposition member in parliament several years ago.

So a media council is a priority but mention Parliamentary modernisation or standards of conduct for MPs and you're greeted with silence. In conjunction with a media council shoudl be a Parliamentary oversight body as any credible modern democracy hass.

Take the Premier's statement on the media council and insert the political and he sounds quite reasonable for a change:

"This bill was developed to create an independent ethics council which will promote fairness, accuracy, accountability and integrity in the content and presentation of political behaviour.

"This is an unprecedented step for Bermuda and as such, its aims are to establish standards of conduct for elected officials and a mechanism for dealing with complaints of breach of any of those standards; to respect political expression ; and to provide a forum through which elected officials will interact with the community."

Dr. Brown said the community had "suffered too long from the devastating impact of unaccountable elected officials".

No surprises here.

The Premier's overseas trips cost an average $29,400 a month from May 2009 to the end of last month -- up from $26,600 a month during 2008/09, despite promises to cut back during the economic crisis.

Dr. Brown's personal ground transport bill came to $33,300 -- including $7,900 during a four-day stay in Washington, D.C. -- with his companions charging for their own ground travel on top of that.

Image is everything.

It's up to the public to decide that they no longer will let this too pass.

An important comment today about local Government:

We were very proud to announce that the city is debt free and has been for more than 15 years for all of its operational purposes. And our financial affairs are audited every year by independent auditors, and without fail the reports are clean and unqualified.

That'a the Corporation of Hamilton, not the Government. What would the Corporations finances look like 5-10 years after the PLP got hold of it?

Probably something like this:

Auditor General's Consolidated Fund Chart

Something jumped out at me while reading that Government is looking to re-table the Internal Audit Bill, establishing a new internal Audit Department:

The Internal Audit Act will set up a new Internal Audit Department to provide an overview of the managing and cost of Government activities.

Dr. Brown introduced the bill on December 4, but made the rare move to "rise and report progress" -- effectively postponing the bill -- after the UBP and BDA said it didn't give enough independence to the overseeing team.

Yesterday, the Premier told this newspaper regarding the internal audit bill: "We have made a few amendments that should meet the favour of both sides of the House."

Two weeks ago The Finance Minister claimed that The Office of Internal Audit was part of the accountability framework.

In addition, there is an accountability framework that includes the office of the Accountant-General's Department, the Office of the Auditor-General, the Office of Internal Audit, and the Ministry of Finance HQ.

The Office of Internal Audit doesn't exist yet.

A reader extends the Parental Responsibility legislation to the political arena:

Statutory provision will be made to make the voters civilly liable for the actions of their Ministers in circumstances where the voters have failed to exercise reasonable care, supervision, protection and control towards their Ministers when it is found to be a contributing factor to the offences committed by the Ministers.

A reader writes on Paula Cox's shocking oped from Wednesday:

"In addition, there is an accountability framework that includes the office of the Accountant-General's Department, the Office of the Auditor-General, the Office of Internal Audit, and the Ministry of Finance HQ."

Why does she even mention this, when this exact "accountability framework" has been raising red flags over the years only to be ignored and/or challenged by government under the guise of menace.

Two qualified audits as a starter. And the Ministry of Finance can't overrule bonehead directives coming from Cabinet and the Minister. They just have to try and make it work.

The Finance Minister is really really reaching to justify her poor stewardship of the country's finance.

Bob Richards has a good rebuttal today. He wasn't overly academic for a change.

Vexed has two good posts on Government's fiscal irresponsibility and poor attempts to justify the exploding debt against GDP, which are worth a read.

One additional point to bear in mind.

When Ms. Cox declares our debt as $679M (and counting but excluding the $200M guarantee on the Bank of Butterfield), she ignores the hospital redevelopment.

That project is an additional $315M of debt (budgeted, if past is prologue it will be multiples of that) hidden off the books through an accounting gimmick of Public Private Partnerships.

The role of Finance Minister has always held clout and prestige and that of a serious guardian of the public purse. Until today.

Paula Cox published a pre-budget oped setting the stage for a debt level that is clearly about to explode in the next budget and trying to deflect her role in the mess that the PLP have got Bermuda's finances into:

The Minister of Finance operates as a cog in the wheel. My role is to add value and to provide input on fiscal positions taken in various ministries. I can indicate support or objection. However the sponsoring minister(s) knows that I cannot overrule their request unless I have others who join with me to support and uphold my position.

Individual Ministers are 'finance directors' in their own right and have a responsibility to keep a keen eye on how their senior officials manage their budgets and projects.

Weak. Seriously weak.

Can someone explain to me what an American law firm brings to the table in reviewing and drafting U.K. legislation for abolishing the Corporations?

Why were they picked for this? There's an angle here. What is it?

What will they recommend? Well, let me take a stab at this:

They're consultants. They'll recommend a) what the client wants and b) whatever results in another contract.

PS The Bushian effort at controlling the language is impressive. 'Reform' means 'abolition' or 'takeover', just as 'enhanced interrogation' is a polite term for 'torture'.

Congratulations to Larry Dennis, Olga Scott and Wendi Fiedler for their mentions in this year's Queen's Honours.

Mr. Dennis deserves special mention for the attacks on his character and professionalism that he has had to endure over the past decade. This recognition will perhaps go someway in remedying and acknowledging his service to Bermuda which came with substantial personal sacrifice.

Well done Larry.

I'd be more likely to pay attention to the Works and Engineering Minister's so-called 'refuting' of a media report regarding the new Court building, if said Minister didn't ask us to seriously believe that said building was substantially complete.

It isn't.

Not even close by any normal non-political reality suspending definition.

All of these photos were taken today, 30th December 2009, one month after the structure was declared 99% complete (click the thumbnails for the full size photos).

The corner of Court and Church Streets, coincidentally the highest trafficked viewing spot, looks complete, with walls and roof painted, windows installed etc.. Clearly that one corner was given priority to give the perception of progress from Church St..

The rest of the building? Not so much. Huge sections unplastered, unsealed, bare beams, pipes exposed, no windows.

And we did a roof wetting on this? Bermudians don't bring out the rum until the exterior of the building is actually complete.

On Friday, Mr. Burgess said that the steel structure, reinforcing, external and internal walls and roofing on the building is 99 percent complete.

And that is before we're supposed to believe that completion excluded the complete interior fit out which will take 18 months. Survey contractors on whether normal clients let them get away with that.

If you're going to outright invent facts such as '99% complete", which any rational observer can independently verify as nonsense with a simple drive-by, you can't expect your 800 word 'refutation' on other issues to be accepted as credible, whether true or not.

With the shooting war going on across the island, the Police have all that they can deal with.

While technically within their remit, it is unconscionable that Police resources are being wasted looking for someone who leaked a benign Cabinet memo.

Get a grip.

The Gazette succeeded in having the injunction lifted and immediately (presumably to preempt an appeal) published the story online, which for many will be an anti-climax but is no doubt newsworthy.

I'll post a few thoughts later this evening.

In response to the islandwide shooting gallery of the past couple of days Mr. Burch said the following:

The fact is that we are fast becoming an Island known for its lawlessness, instead of a Country known for its pink sand beaches and international business prowess. This is not a reputation to be proud of.

I agree.

But here's the thing: we were known for this before the shootings began, we were becoming known for this because of our political leadership.

It starts at the top.

• The Premier threatened to physically assault a member of the Opposition in Parliament several years ago
• The Premier secretly made a deal he did not have the legal authority to make with the US to bring the 4 Uighurs here
• The Government, while decrying gang turf wars, has been reveling in their own turf war with the Governor over control of the Police
• The Auditor General was forceably and without warning moved out of his office space by Minister Burch several years ago and dumped into smaller quarters for doing his job.
• The election campaign of 2007 took on the tone of a gang war with the PLP declaring that the Opposition leader was a drug dealer and wanted to 'flog' and 'lynch' black Bermudians.
• Contracts go out untendered and run massively overbudget without explanation or anyone held accountable
• Government alleged that the Auditor General was a racist for qualifying an audit opinion, and challenging the Berkeley overspends and construction bond (which history has proven he was entirely correct on)
• The Bermuda Cement Company was all but stolen out from its shareholders and handed to a Government crony
• The political broadcasting regulations were disregarded during the election campaign by the PLP's radio station

I can go on but I'm tired of being outraged.

The tone, the culture of lawlessness, the attitude that no-one should be accountable for their actions comes from the top. The very top of our political leadership. I'm not surprised other segments of the community are acting out and emulating this behaviour, albeit in a violent manner.

Until we start seeing some improvement at the top, we're not going to see any further down the chain. This didn't start overnight and it won't end overnight. This isn't just about policing. It's about an erosion of values and an anything goes culture.

Mr. Burch is right. But he needs to get his own party's house in order too.

Rules matter. Laws matter. Accountability matters. Process matters. It all starts there. At the top. The very top.

The ruling on the Government's temporary injunction against the Royal Gazette will be made at 2:30PM on Friday.

This is an interesting one from the sounds of it, which is a little different than the previous failed injunction to prevent disclosure of the leaked BHC documents.

This is a leaked Cabinet memo...oops, did I just say that? Well, everyone knows that at this point anyway.

So there's some issues around The Official Secrets Act, and as it doesn't involve allegations of criminality or corruption as with the BHC, there's a more tenuous balance between the public right to know and confidentiality in a legal sense I believe.

But at this point Government may want this thing released anyway because the rumours may be getting worse than the truth.

While the rumour mill is rampant it's also apparently pretty close. As the Gazette reported this story out I think they deserve the right to break it and sell a few papers and get a few hits on their site if they successfully overturn the temporary injunction. Otherwise I suspect all bets are off.

Regardless, the story is getting out whether the injunction against the Gazette... and it's only against the Gazette...is upheld or not.

The genie is out of the bottle.

The person with the most to lose in the mess that the Bermuda Government's finances have become is Paula Cox.

I said previously, and I don't think many would dispute it, that Paula Cox was one of those rare politicians who few people spoke poorly of, and most had very high expectations of. She is seen as the heir apparent, but her credibility is taking a huge hit due to her performance as Finance Minister.

The overspending, the massive increases in debt, the poor budgeting, the systemic lack of financial discipline throughout Government, all flows through her.

I'm a little surprised that she's allowed herself to become the owner of the Premier's lavish, wasteful and uncontrolled spending, as highlighted by two successive qualified audits.

Her response on Friday was characteristically verbose and full of platitudes but can't be seen as particularly inspiring based on her lack of action since the last qualified audit, not to mention the years and years of warnings from the previous Auditor General.

The Finance Minister proclaimed on Friday that:

"It has to be said, quite simply, that when the an Auditor General speaks, Government listen and take heed.

But she did not listen not listen and take heed of the previous Auditor General. If she had we wouldn't have a second successive qualified audit. Instead the Finance Minister sat by while her colleagues savagely attacked Larry Dennis' credibility and continued with business as usual.

This didn't have to be her problem. She was perhaps the one individual who could have stepped up in the past couple of years, but particularly after the Uighur controversy, and said "Enough, I resign from Cabinet".

It's hard to see how Dr. Brown could have survived that. She had such popularity and cross-over appeal but that seems to be coupled with little backbone to stand up for what is right and has propped up the Premier.

I'm not sure if it's party loyalty, or an overly cautious approach, or just a lack of initiative, but the Finance Minister and Deputy Premier has never exerted herself or her authority in the party or the Government. She's preferred to coast along in anticipation of a coronation it seems if, and that's a big if, the Premier leaves in October as he promised in order to buy himself some time so that 'this too shall pass'.

That's not to say Ms. Cox won't become the next Premier, but her silence in the face of obvious problems with Government financial controls means that she owns this mess as much as her Premier.

It didn't have to be that way.

It's been 4 days since the new Auditor General submitted her qualified audit opinion to Parliament, and I've been waiting patiently for the Premier to do what he did last time; within 24 hours of Larry Dennis's qualified audit opinion on March 21st 2009 the Premier called for him to be fired and said the following:

"For more than two years, our Government has been calling for the Governor to request the resignation of Mr. Dennis. We think that he has politicised his post and he is decidedly anti-Government."

Acknowledging the Auditor General's August retirement, the Premier added: "He is determined to do damage to our Government on the way out. We do not mind being audited, but Mr. Dennis long ago diverted from the norm and really it does not deserve the respect of the Government."

....

Dr. Brown said the Auditor's special report was "a distressing example of an abuse of power, a manifestation of the politicisation of the high office in question and evidence of a clear intention on the part of the Auditor to inflict harm to the reputation of two ministers of this Government."

Does Ms. Jacobs Matthews opinion 'deserve the respect of the Government'? Is she decidedly 'anti-Government'? Is she 'abusing her power'? Did she 'politise high office'?

Oh, but before we consider that question, let's see what Dr. Brown had to say when Ms. Jacobs Matthews was appointed:

"I expect", declared Dr. Brown, "that Mrs. Jacobs-Matthews will be firm but fair; thorough but impartial; forceful but temperate and above all Mr. Speaker, focused squarely on the remit of her office".

Not a lot of room to maneuver here. So we're on plan B, blame the global economy for un-tendered projects, overspends and lack of supporting financial documentation.

Just to reiterate, the broadside against Mr. Dennis was delivered (via proxy) within 24 hours of the tabling of his qualified audit.

Surely the press should be asking the Premier whether his comments post Mr. Dennis' qualified audit apply to the new qualified audit from the new Auditor General, or whether he withdraws his previous attack on Mr. Dennis?

There's obviously an inconvenient issue here though that makes the previous excuses harder to apply to Ms. Jacobs Matthews; the previous attacks were all predicated on a multi-year campaign built around Mr. Dennis's pigmentation. That isn't really going to work so well against Ms. Matthews now is it.

They're in a bit of a predicament here. The 'it's because we're a black Government' defense has been used extensively over the past 10 years and the signature item in that defense just went kaboom.

Auditing is auditing. It's not particularly subjective as disciplines go. Numbers can be twisted to lie, but a rogue auditor will be quickly called out. Mr. Dennis never was. And the new Auditor just validated his opinion.

The ball is in the PLP's court to either remain consistent in their attacks on any Auditor General who qualifies their opinion, or make one big ole public apology to Mr. Dennis.

We all know that won't happen.

It goes without saying that at a publicly traded company, a qualified audit opinion would result in the immediate dismissal of the CEO and CFO. What will happen here now that the Government received a not surprising qualified audit opinion from the new Auditor General (who they will have a much harder time shrugging off as a number crunching racist as they did her predecessor)?

Time will tell.

While generally popular, it has to be said that Finance Minister Paula Cox has been a colossal disappointment. She has never put her stamp on the Ministry, largely letting things run. She has not taken a pro-active role in building surpluses during the good times to carry us through when the inevitable downturns come. Instead we got an absurd budgeted increase in government revenues for 09/10 during a massive economic contraction.

It is laughable, delusional, embarrassing frankly, for her to even mention the economic collapse while talking about the qualified audit opinion as she did yesterday. That is sheer desperation.

The recession had nothing to do with the cruise ship pier running almost double budget, or any over-spending. It has had an impact no doubt on government revenues. But revenue shortfalls don't cause qualified opinions. Lack of documentation, unaccounted cost over-runs, capital projects built for far more than their construction costs do, or fraud do.

The Finance Minister's role is not to simply cut the checks for Ministers who either can't, or don't want to control costs and enforce budgets. The Premier of course being the prime offender here with his favourite contractor, money pit Music Festival, Love Festival and the like.

A qualified opinion is not something that the Finance Minister should welcome and attempt to bury in her characteristic empty pages of cliche filled nothingness.

This is not a minor issue. This was not unforeseen. This is not about institutions needing better internal controls. It's about not facilitating a culture which has dismissed established and worldwide standards of best practices and accountability as some great white political conspiracy. I hate the word 'enabler', but in this case it is entirely appropriate. The Finance Minister has been enabling the systematic collapse of Bermuda Government financial controls.

This has been building for years, and perhaps many people thought they could just dismiss it and say it didn't matter because the Government was collecting surplus revenues due to two unexpected expansions of the economy. Things still appeared ok on the surface to those who didn't want to scratch that surface.

The overspending (to put it kindly) has seriously impaired Bermuda's ability to weather an economic storm. The Finance Minister has been negligent in building a culture of accountability in Government, and standing up to rogue Ministers who either turn a blind eye, or, to take the sinister view, encourage massive capital project budget overruns.

This has to stop. The Finance Minister needs to take responsibility and either commit to standing up for the people of Bermuda instead of shirking her responsibility, or admit that she's not up to the position.

People across the political and economic spectrum held Paula Cox in very high regard and had high expectations of her for many years. Those same people are now expressing a deep disappointment in her performance and wondering just who in the Government is up to the task of running the Government in the best interests of the public.

Amid all the comment on the apparent free fire zone that has spread across the island, Dale Butler was quoted as saying the following in response to the latest shooting:

Government MP Dale Butler said he is still trying to digest what happened: "When there is little or no discipline and basic values and institutions are ignored, you reap what you sow."

That applies to the way the island is governed as well. The lack of (fiscal) discipline and basic values (truth) and institutions being ignored (or in the case of the Auditor outright attacked) from our politicians shouldn't be ignored either.

This has a trickle down effect. The tone has been set at the highest levels.

Bermuda's criminals are not dumb. They know that the Government are playing politics with the Police rather than supporting them, and they'll take advantage of a lack of political will to crack down.

They surely noticed during the election campaign that the incumbent party declared that getting tough on crime was "draconian".

Message received. You reap what you sow.

The UBP's PATI submission is here on their website, or in pdf here

Denis Pitcher's is here.

I hear through the grapevine that there was a large number of submissions at the deadline.

The B.D.A.'s PATI Submission can be found here or on Facebook here.

I can't find anything on the UBP's site yet except the post urging people to make submissions (and the PLP's is obviously the draft itself).

Jonathon Starling has posted his at his blog.

I presume we'll get the Gazette's in tomorrow's paper. Not sure about other media.

Below is my PATI submission sent in today. It's by no means exhaustive, and this is a pretty complex piece of legislation, but I think it hits the main points.

I made a special effort to push for online access and electronic access to records, which I suspect may not be something which gets a lot of comment through the normal channels.

ATTN Cabinet Secretary

Please accept this email correspondence as a submission relating to the draft PATI legislation. Please confirm receipt.

I would comment on the following issues:

1) Retro-activity of this legislation is critically important. There should be no start date for record eligibility subject to the Public Access to Information legislation.

With respects to older documents, every effort should be made to retrieve these and the decision to release should err on the site of disclosure.

2) The draft legislation is silent on the issue of whistle-blower protection. This is a critical component of our public access to information.

Whistle-blowers tend to be insiders who will therefore require protection from negative sanction or consequences. Government officials, whether elected or otherwise, who attempt to interfere with or intimidate a whistle-blower should be subject to sanction and penalties. These would include potential fines and/or termination of employment as determined by an investigative panel and/or the courts.

3) Section 6 - The Commissioner should be required to maintain an online and open database of FOI requests (the log); including the status of all requests, the date requested and any subsequent actions as a result of the request.

Documents released should also be published online and be accessible to the general public through a website.

If the request pertains to personal information deemed unsuitable for public release (medical information for example) the log should contain an entry to that effect rather than an omission.

The draft legislation puts to onus on individuals to request access to the log. The log should be accessible at all times, and in real-time, through an open online database. Access to the server logs of website visitor activity should not be accessible by government officials, elected or
otherwise.

The ability to make requests online is vital. Individual identities can be protected and verified through digital certificates and digitally signed emails. The definition of a 'written request' should include electronic methods including email.

4) If it is not already the case, Government should make digitized records a priority and document retention enshrined in civil service procedures. Email should be considered a record and any emails sent or received on a government mail server should not be subject to deletion and should be archived as part of the public record. This would include mobile devices.

4) Fees for access to records should be low or non-existent so as not to act as a disincentive to FOI requests. Every resident is a taxpayer and as such should be considered a stakeholder who funds the public sector. As such anything other than nominal fees are inappropriate.

5) There should be no maximum number of requests for any individual or organisation.

6) Regulations should be made by way of affirmative resolution procedure i.e. vote in the Legislature, rather than negative resolution procedure, as is the case in the draft. Negative approach is inconsistent with spirit and purpose of Act.

7) All documents should be deemed releasable and exemptions should expire after 20 years (other than personal confidential information such as medical records).

8) Implementation of PATI legislation is a national priority and should be achievable within 12 months of passage by the House and Senate.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Just wrapping up my submission on Public Access to Information. It's short and sweet, but I wanted to wait until the end before submitting to hear as many comments as I could to reinforce. Wisdom of crowds and all that.

Monday is the deadline. PATI@gov.bm is the address for submissions.

Please contribute, even if it's only brief. I think the key issues are retro-activity and whistle-blower protection. I'll post my submission tomorrow once it's final.

I'm still digesting the draft PATI bill, but find it particularly cynical that as widely commented, the legislation is proposed to be:

• going forward only
• take 2 to 3 years to implement
• under the control of the Cabinet Office

All of this dramatically undermines the integrity of the bill.

The cynic in me notes that this ensures that:

• Past behaviour can remain covered up
• 2 to 3 years ensures no messy secrets can be dug up before the next election (max 3 years before next one has to be called)
• Cabinet won't have any unwelcome surprises

Very, very cynical.

I'd also note that MPs approved pay raises for themselves effective immediately, but freedom of information has to wait until they're out of office and cannot look back.

If that doesn't show priorities nothing will. I always thought it should be the reverse; pay raises should apply to the next Parliament so you have to face the voters.

The first job of a politician they say is to get re-elected.

A reader refines my comment from a couple of days ago on Dr. Brown's unapologetic mixing of public and private interests:

I concluded with the statement in quotes below and the reader rightly corrects me:

"Politicians have to make a choice: It's either public of private sector. It can't be both."

Actually, the voters have to make a choice. In a democratic society, the government (and its leader) serve at the pleasure of the public, not vice versa. The public needs to understand that the government is elected to represent the public's interest, not the politicians'.

But most of all, governments are elected to govern and follow policies of sound governance. Governance policies are put in place to mitigate the risk of a rogue politician acting for their own benefit, similar to the objectives of corporate governance in the private sector.

When government loses control of its members, and governance policies are regularly over-ridden and public interests are superseded by private ones, the voters need to make a choice.

I concur. Ultimately it's the voters who have to make the choice as to what is and is not acceptable.

If the Bermuda Government is getting a reputation as being corrupt it's because:

The political campaign manager of the Premier of Bermuda can't account for hundreds of thousands of taxpayer funds, and those he can account for don't appear to have actually achieved anything.

And that's before we get into what looks like a whole bunch of lying being done in the name of the Lord.

Psst! Dr. Brown. It's not the Opposition. It's you.

Hell, they can't even run a successful political campaign let alone a global media conspiracy.

I must say, that the Corporation of Hamilton has to be the most dysfunctional group around.

Bill Black. Gone.
David Dunkley. Gone (Appealing).
Graeme Outerbridge. Resigned (to re-run).
Carville Van Putten. Gone.

Talk about a melt down.

Read the speech entitled "Medical Tourism - Myth or Reality" - posted on the PLP's website, but apparently not the Government portal (a persistent situation where Official statements are posted on the party site not the Government website (as Vexed pointed out recently), and ask yourself, just what is Dr. Brown promoting and in what capacity is his acting?

Is he promoting Bermuda as a tourist destination or his private business?

Is he delivering the speech as Premier of Bermuda or the owner of an expanding health care business?

New Onion gets it:

The one person who benefits from medical tourism in Bermuda is Dr. Brown with his clinic.

In the speech Dr. Brown says:

When I became Premier of Bermuda, I was serving as Medical Director of my clinic and serving my government as Minister of Tourism and Transport. I decided to keep the Tourism and Transport portfolios even after taking over the leadership.

So, you see, I am a busy guy – with a lot of interests in a lot of areas.

The final sentence should read, with a lot of conflicts of interest in a lot of areas.

If Bermuda is to be a mature democracy, and if Dr. Brown doesn't want to be pegged as corrupt and have to resort to spending taxpayer funds to fix his corrupt image problem, he needs to decide what he wants: a public sector or private sector life?

When you enter public life, particularly as Premier but also as a Cabinet Minister, you have to make a choice. If you have private sector interests then you must recuse yourself from all public policy discussions in that field.

When health care comes up in Cabinet, the Premier should leave the room.

David Dodwell did that while Tourism Minister under the UBP Government. He removed himself from day to day management of his hotel, The Reefs for a number of years. I know because he was excited to get back involved in the running of his hotel when the UBP was kicked to the curb in 1998.

In the US, the President has to put his assets into a blind trust while he occupies the office.

However, in Bermuda, the Premier takes great pride in announcing his conflict of interests to an audience who must have been scratching their heads wondering how someone can mix public and private interests so unabashedly.

Dr. Brown, as we saw with the secret Saturday meetings about the hospital, is driving healthcare policy in Bermuda.

For a sitting Premier to be developing and implementing public healthcare policy all the while competing (with an inside track) with his private healthcare facilities is appalling.

Politicians have to make a choice: It's either public of private sector. It can't be both.

A reader writes on the undermining of Parliament:

When democracy was last seen she was a speck on the horizon waving a white flag.

Vexed is also right:

We are seeing a terrible erosion of Bermuda’s institutions and an incredible abuse of power. The manipulation is transparent and artless. Pure politricks.

The UBP (and the soporific PLP backbench) must stop acting like someone farted at the tea party and start fighting for what they know is right. Dr Brown’s insatiable hunger has become the PLP’s problem and Bermuda’s great risk.

I've been meaning to to get to this topic, but I watched the HBO documentary on the 2000 US Presidential Election called "Recount" on Sunday night.

I've said repeatedly for years now that the PLP tactics and pathology is in lock-step with the Republicans since they swept into power in the 1994 bye-elections, while the UBP is very much like the Democrats who have lost (until recently) almost every political and policy fight of the past decade.

The following summation of the dynamic at play between Bush's recount team and Gore's sums up for me the essential dynamic between the PLP and UBP:

The avatar of Establishment wimpiness in "Recount" is Christopher, the former secretary of state who was brought in to helm the battle over the recount. Again and again, the film shows Christopher declaiming that "the world is watching," delivering lofty speeches about America's unique status and insisting Gore's team must adhere to Marquis of Queensbury rules, while Baker is revving up the full power of the well-oiled Republican attack machine. "I want our protesters down there in Palm Beach, Tallahassee and Miami," Baker tells his team. "Listen, people, this is a street fight for the presidency of the U.S. It ain't gonna get more political than this." Cut to Christopher, his brow furrowed loftily: "We want to proceed as if this is a proper legal process, not a political street fight ... chaos will not help our cause." A few moments later, Christopher says, "No lawsuits." Cut to Baker: "I want to file a lawsuit in federal court as soon as possible."

On one side, a bunch of dithering, principled losers who politely ask permission to enter the ring. On the other, a disciplined, ruthless gang of brawlers burning with self-righteousness, a near-holy sense of entitlement and controlled rage. We can't say we should be surprised by the way George W. Bush has run the country -- the blueprint was laid out even before he took office.

It's probably a little simplistic, but is at it's core correct for the US on a national level.

In our case, the UBP (Democrats) are the principled losers who politely ask permission to enter the ring, cautious and respectful of tradition, institutions and rules while the PLP (Republicans) care very little for process and precedent and simply treat every issue as a political street fight where the ends justify the means.

I include myself in this. I tend to get tied up in procedural and policy arguments as I believe they are important and define crucial boundaries.

However the UBP are going to have to figure out how to not betray their principles and respect for the political system while either putting the gloves on and taking on Dr. Brown with vigor, or getting out of the way.

Dr. Brown has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that he is manifestly unfit for public office of any kind, let alone the Premiership.

Even if you were willing to ignore the nepotism in his Playboy Mansion giveaway, his lack of judgment as a steward of taxpayer funds and Bermuda's reputation is horrendous.

What politician in their right mind in any reputable country would give taxpayer funds away to an event at the Playboy mansion promoting soft porn and gambling with a health care charity as the excuse?

The hubris and sheer lack of respect for the people of Bermuda is mind-numbing.

I know the complaint seems to be that the UBP is weak, and in a way they are; they haven't figured out how to fight tougher because they don't want to adopt the tactics they abhor.

However the critical weakness lies within the PLP Parliamentary group now.

Surely enough of the PLP MPs can see how bad Ewart Brown is for Bermuda; how he sees only the interest in conflict of interest; how his power hungry vendettas are dominating the Government agenda, yet they sit by like a bunch of deaf mutes.

They say there's a tipping point, the Iraq War was Bush's, what will be Bermuda's?

I'm not sure if anyone's noticed, but the Bermuda Government has gone green, just not in the way many would have hoped; they've gone PLP green.

There has been a definite shift, slowly at first but now I think they're all in, in producing Bermuda Government materials (as opposed to PLP party materials) in the PLP's party colour of green.

The Bermuda Government's colour has been blue as far as I'm aware. I'm not sure if there is an official statement or anything to that effect, but the green that is everywhere now is without a doubt new to Government publications, and is clearly intended not just to blur, but obliterate, the separation between party (PLP), and The Bermuda Government.

This is an important separation that must be respected. The line where politics and policy crosses is a bit of a grey area, but there's been some serious creep.

During the election we even saw the Premier's Press Secretary making overtly political defenses, invoking party, when he represents the Premier of Bermuda not the PLP's Party Leader.

As ridiculous as it looks, I can tolerate the green ties and dresses that were clearly ordered for the opening of Parliament, at polling stations on election day etc. (It just feels like a high school election to me not a national one).

But just for one day, particularly ceremonial ones like the opening of Parliament, it would be nice to remove the overt politicking and subtle messaging.

And I HATE the party pins, of either side, UBP or PLP. I also dislike the Bermuda flag ones as well on politicians, because, as Barack Obama so adeptly noted, the American flag pins on politicians have become a "substitute for true patriotism".

This is all about branding, marketing and subliminal messaging, and the infusion of party branding into official Government materials absolutely goes too far.

I'd picked up on bits and pieces prior to the election, but it really jumped out to me with the budget, the cover of which bore a more than passing resemblance to the PLP's 2008 Election Platform document cover, heavy on the green with light and dark green arc's, and was a complete departure from the 2007 Budget cover.

Then, just the other day, I received in the mail the Community Education Spring Term Registration document, that was again heavy on green for the first time I can recall (I seem to remember it being an orange insert in the past) with, identically to the PLP's platform, green headers and footers on the inside pages with interchangeable black and green font colours on the text.

It reminded me of those cheesy Election Progress Report documents as well.

It really is striking how similar the documents look. This is clearly not a coincidence, and there is clearly a shift towards infusing the PLP brand look and feel into Official Government materials.

It's not just in materials either. There has been a real creeping politicisation of the civil service over the PLP's term, which ramped up massively in the past year or so. This crested, or so I thought, with Government vehicles driving around on election day with PLP flags in the windows and civil servants holding signs and wearing bandanas and t-shirts into work. This went on for a few days after the election as well.

That is a terrible breach of protocol by civil servants who are sworn to act in a non-political manner, but know that this is all about proving your loyalty now, and are watching their work pushed out to PLP affiliated consultants and contractors. It's either get in line or get out of the way.

Historically there has been a fair amount of respect given to the line between party and Government, but to have Government materials now printed with PLP branding is a real tipping point and doesn't bode well for further erosions of separations between party business and official Government business.

It shows a real lack of respect for the institution of the Bermuda Government, and undermines the checks and balances built into the Westminster system.

The Royal Gazette is participating in Sunshine Week as part of their campaign to get Bermuda into the 1900's with such radical legislation such as Public Access to Information and Freedom of Information laws.

Typically, Bermuda can't just do what's right, we have to wade through the morass of politically inspired payback and typically condescending and arrogant declarations that the Doctor knows best, some-dead-guys-didn't-want-to-do-it-400-years-ago, so-we'll-deal-with-it -in-our-own-sweet-time, thank-you-very-much-rejections-dressed-up-as-agreement spin.

Meanwhile, back at the Stem Cell Clinic, the secret Saturday hospital meetings continue, the Berkeley project settlement gets buried and contracts continue to go un-tendered.

Rant. Over.

Question:

If I rent a mailbox at Mailboxes Unlimited in town, am I eligible to run for the Corporation?

Is that 'beneficial occupancy'?

(The tactic of challenging the eligibility of Corporation of Hamilton common councillor Graeme Outerbridge and alderman David Dunkley revolves around the apparent legitimacy of their 'beneficial occupancy' within the City; both appear to maintain at the most shared office space in the city, or at the minimum, token occupancy.)

Since this whole insidery political power struggle at the Corporation of of Hamilton began, I couldn't figure out why it felt atypical as Bermuda political scandals go.

But it's actually obvious: no-one has accused the other side of being a racist yet.

How refreshing. A simple good old fashioned political dust-up. Let's enjoy the break from the predictable shall we.

Graeme Outerbridge's quote today applies to just about every dispute here that inevitably goes racial:

Mr. Outerbridge, who has previously run unsuccessfully for Mayor, says he has no concerns about his eligibility, adding that the inquiry "really is about the differences around the table".

He claims he and Mr. Dunkley are being targeted because of "philosophical" disagreements and because they have tried to ensure the Corporation operates under good governance.

Reminds me yet again of that great concept of 'racism without racists' that a Stanford professor has discussed.

Seems to me that since the Corporation doesn't revolve around that tired PLP v UBP dynamic, that race hasn't come into it. Hallelujah.

Which I think presents a simple truth: when you mix race and politics all you get is politics.

And I maintain that 99% of the time a political dispute in Bermuda goes racial, it has nothing in fact to do with race at all, but race is a useful political lever to pull and the UBP and PLP lend themselves too well to that tactic.

I'm feeling very lazy lately, so I'll direct you to Vexed Bermoothes brings who kindly brings us the Throne Speech minus the self-congratulatory platitudes.

Notably absent? The Workplace Equity Act, looking more and more like a disingenuous pre-election stunt. One of those publicly touted things while privately the donors are being told "don't worry about it".

If you want the long-winded version, you can get it here.

Five years later and the whole BHC scandal is still looming over the electorate and certain politicians heads as we head to the polls.

Last week the Mid Ocean News ran another set of stories (here and here ) based on some new documents which they received, separate from the Son of the Soil files.

Today, the Minister responsible for Housing, Sen. Burch, has issued a statement disputing the content of the story and calling for a retraction.

I think it's safe to say that at this point the public don't know what to believe anymore but they know that something went on. Lawsuits, retractions aren't going to change that.

The only way we are ever going to put this to bed is to have an independent enquiry and a proper forensic accounting.

It is wrong if people are being unfairly accused (although they never addressed the allegations specifically), but also wrong that a proper investigation of the apparent misuse of public funds has never occurred.

Bermuda needs to follow the lead of the Cayman Islands, who today appointed a Commission of Enquiry to look into the removal of some documents from their Ministry of Tourism, as well as other issues.

The enquiry will be made public.

The UBP have promised this if they win the election, and the PLP should do the same so that the endless speculation and surfacing of new information can end and we can put a full stop on this chapter of Bermuda's political history.

With today's latest chapter (and here) in the scandal that keeps on giving, I thought it appropriate to post UBP MP John Barritt's speech to Rotarians on the vital reforms for more openness and accountability in Government (the UBP's YouTube channel has a bunch of new videos on it if you're interested).

If there is one thing that I would like to work on with the UBP after this election, it would be this. If they don't win I just don't see it happening.

It is the most important single issue. You can't have a Government that works for the people unless we make it truly accountable to them, everything else flows from this:

If you want to know what a real defamation suit looks like, watch this unfold.

One would presume, or at least hope, that the majority of the public get concerned at repeated Police searches on the body charged with overseeing the public purse and public officials (bear in mind that the recently introducted Ombudsman is legislative prohibited from investigating Ministers). The Auditor is it.

Now we all know that the talking point around the leaked BHC files, and now the Health Minister's meeting notes, is that "THEY WERE STOLEN!" and hence the content is irrelevant, but that's a purely political response.

The Auditor General is tasked with holding public officials accountable and protecting the public purse.

If he is presented with information that suggests wrong-doing, as he evidently was, he has a duty - an obligation - to act on it.

He would be negligent if he said "Damn, that's bad stuff but I shouldn't have seen this therefore I'm not interested".

How the Auditor comes by information is irrelevant, other than if he's breaking into buildings himself to get things, which he is not accused of doing. Any Independent oversight agency MUST act on this kind of information.

In most modern democracies, when the independent Auditor speaks the politicians quake in their boots and snap to action to remedy the problems. But no. Not here.

Here's he's unpredictably arrested and predictably accused of bias, racism or being a "vigilante" and a "criminal abettor" - which would make for a hell of a defamation suit if you ask me (and I know a thing or two about those).

The only appropriate response to this situation, and I believe that the UBP's Pat Gordon-Pamplin made this point on the news Friday evening, is to strengthen the Office of the Auditor, pass Freedom of Information laws and Whistleblower Acts.

There's only one party which has committed itself to enacting this kind of progressive and overdue legislation and fundamentally reforming our outdated Parliament. And it isn't the one with 'progressive' in it's name.

And, we go back down the Rabbit hole, with another raid on the Auditor General.

I'll quote one of the Law Lords at the Privy Council during the recent gag order attempt, who apparently twice said incredulously:

"You arrested the Auditor General?".

Well, well. The Son of the Soil has stepped forward today in The Mid Ocean News, for the 2 people who didn't know (and those who wanted to pretend it was all orchestrated by the UBP).

As The Mid Ocean doesn't go online until Sundays, you'll have to fork over your 80 cents. Go on. It's worth it.

I've been away for a few days, and getting bits and pieces of the Privy Council developments. I'm now catching up on all the news that's legally permissible to print, and the silent but deadly reaction from the Premier's spin doctors.

I must say though, that the rather expert Googler over at Vexed Bermoothes has dug up a few juicy tidbits on the World Tourism Marketing Summit, where Dr. Brown strangely found himself incommunicado for a few days:

Indeed, you may ask why is Bermuda sponsoring the CHINESE tourism summit in BEIJING when we have closed our marketing offices in most gateway cities to save money?

Simple: the event runs from October 28 through 30 making sure that Dr. Brown is otherwise disposed when the Privy Council meets on October 29 to consider the BHC matter.

A date which just so happened to coincide with his legal defeat (a result that even his advisors and lawyers have been out saying was entirely expected (aka - we were just buying time)).

Funnily enough, it would seem that Dr. Brown has literally proven the story we were told as kids that if you dug a hole deep enough eventually you'd hit China. Who'd a thunk it?

But back to that Marketing Summit, where Dr. Brown was given an award...for bringing business travelers to Bermuda...er, I mean "The Tourism Leadership Award".

It would seem that Bermuda, the smallest country at the summit, was also one of the largest sponsors. And it also seems that the event was organised in part by the primary movers behind the African Diaspora Heritage Trail as Vexed points out:

So how did little ole Bermuda get sucked in as a major financial sponsor of the Chinese World Tourism Marketing Summit?

Perhaps because the event’s organisers include The Bradford Group, a US marketing company. The Bradford Group is also the organiser of the Africa Travel Association and the International Institute for Peace Through Tourism. As it happens, these two organisations are the major boosters of Dr. Brown’s African Diaspora Heritage Trail.

So, don't be too bowled over by that award, it appears to have been a thank you gesture for funds delivered, as was the quid pro quo of giving Dr. Brown a destination to profile far away from Bermuda while he took it on the chin at home.

The silence can't continue forever. While the PLP spin doctors appear to back on the same refrain as they were when this all broke back in August (ie. we're focused on the issues, it's all a great UBP media conspiracy), eventually it might dawn on them that corruption is an issue.

Cue disenchanted PLP insiders.

The UBP have a couple of statements (here and here) on their website regarding the fallout of the Privy Council defeat for the Government and the victory for accountability of public officials and the protection of freedom of the press.

John Barritt's comments are important, because he takes the decision to its next necessary step, which is using this landmark decision as a launching pad for fundamental parliamentary reform.

Bermuda's legislature and political system has stagnated and is not modernising. We are being left behind, by competing jurisdictions which are not without their own problems but appear more foresighted than our current Government who are blinded by their obsession with a 50 year old battle, a fight which can't be fought with the only tactics they know.

The public are increasingly moving ahead of the PLP Government, who have emulated and escalated the worst of the behaviour they condemned as opposition. We need reform as John says:

I cannot say that the decision is the end of the matter though.

Nor is the further publication of any further information. That’s not good enough either.

I think the entire matter of the BHC scandal from start to finish has shown up the deficiencies of our system of government and underscored the need for reform – meaningful and serious reform that is long overdue here in Bermuda.

The expenditure of public money and the operation of any Government department or of any Government funded quango should be subject at all times to review and investigation by a more active Public Accounts Committee of the House of Assembly, or a working sub-committee thereof, which meets consistently and regularly, if not weekly, with all the necessary powers to summons Ministers and civil servants to account, and whose meetings should be open to the press and public.

It's time to move into the next century.

Just in from the Privy Council:

The public interest wins, Dr. Brown is the biggest loser.

Oh, and we get to pick up costs for his no hope exercise in legal delay tactics.

I'm pretty much out of contact until Wednesday, but you can follow I'm sure on the Gazette and Sun websites.

A month ago I posted a link to a new website created by the people who brought us Wikipedia, this one is geared around "providing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis."

It's called wikileaks.org.

A few days after that a reader sent me a note that the site was creating a top ten suppressed reports for each country and was requesting submissions. I forgot to post the info. My reader poked me again a couple of days ago to advise me that Bermuda now has it's own section.

Submissions can be emailed to jay@wikileaks.org.

From those who brought us wikipedia, we now have wikileaks.org, a safe destination for whistleblowers:

Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.

We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.

Seems to me like the Son of the Soil knows where to post part two, whenever he's ready.

Dr. Brown's wasting his time trying to button up the The Royal Gazette, the Mid Ocean News, and that jackass at Politics.bm with his libel claim (aka trojan horse for a temporary injunction against further publication - or even linking to leaked info).

It won't be me he has to worry about, that's for sure. The internet is a big place.

Hmmm, intrigued about the date conflict between what the Department of Tourism says and CeCe Winan's website says, a reader emailed CW Entertainment's Marketing and Booking Director, who confirmed that Ms. Winans is not scheduled to be in Bermuda but is scheduled to be in Georgia per her website.

Over to you Mr. Curtis.

I've been away for the past couple of days and am catching up on the rapid pace of Bermuda news right now.

One thing that did interest me was Wednesday's story on the Auditor wanting to review Faith Based Tourism (a good idea - story not online) and then on Thursday backing away from it, although the Gazette stands by their story.

In this instance, I think that the Auditor's public comments went too far.

It's fine and completely understandable for him to suspect that the events listed by Andre Curtis were largely fabricated (a conclusion a lot of people seem to have reached), however Mr. Dennis should not have said that publicly.

I'm not sure how the process works for initiating an audit on any specific project or department, but it was inappropriate to make the statements he did before he had more information.

Thursday's story where Mr. Dennis back-tracked from those comments is interesting, but probably a matter of reading the article, cringing as many do when they see how these stories get written, getting a bit of push back internally, and deciding to tone things down a little.

That's not to say an audit shouldn't be done. It should. But the Auditor General's office should be restrained in their public comments, particularly before they have performed their audits.

A reader writes:

Every day I read and see whether the political agenda of the day is going to top its predecessor – watching how far this government can push its people around before they push back - waiting for that tightly wounded rubber band to snap hoping it would not cut this country in half.

I wonder about the people in charge of our country and who are they feeding, ‘their’ public or ‘our’ public? Whose hand I am really feeding, my family or someone pocket and what defines a conflict of interest – the ethics of a politician (good for my country) or as a businessman (good for my business).

I see unethical politics broadcasted (literally) over this 21 square mile community and yet when questioned why, we’re met with stonewall of silence – from the “no question allowed” press conferences to the “past is the past, deal with it” rhetoric – even worse playing on fear and race to get their message across.

Unbalanced and unchecked government does not serve its people – it just divides them. Transparency becomes tangled in webs of truths and lies until it snags us all and we become food to anger, hate, and despair - controls of fear.

“People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.” (V for Vendetta, 2005)

Who is afraid?

A reader picks up on the misnomer that that leaked Police report was about people's personal lives:

I picked up the point too, about the “personal lives”. Look this isn’t about personal lives, it’s about public monies and elected officials in their exercise of their public duties and responsibilities. That’s the point. We need to make actual transparency and accountability common place around here – and not the subject of news media investigations and court proceedings. See now, today, how they dodge and avoid question on faith-based tourism. This should not be acceptable and there should be mechanisms in place to call people to account when it comes to public funds and publicly-funded initiatives.

A reader writes on the fatal flaws of the argument that is being heavily peddled by the apologists for unethical politicians that merely not breaking the law is the standard our politicians should aspire to:

Good governance is about so much more than whether behavior is criminal or not, and I fail to see how anyone can take pride or solace or comfort in the fact that there was a criminal investigation that did not result in the country's highest elected officials being questioned and charged --- and that because, according to the DPP, our laws were/are out-of-date. Have they forgotten too, that he recommended civil action? Good governance is about setting the highest standards for our elected officials and holding them to account through a system of openness and transparency, the absence of which has been underscored by the BHC scandal.

Bumper day in the Mid Ocean News today with some interesting angles on the dubious Faith Based Tourism scheme (since when did Bermuda tourism become a charitable venture anyway) and those infamous cedar beams.

In the absence of any denials or demands for apologies/retractions I'll presume they've got it about right.

It's somewhat reassuring to read that two former PLP MPs voiced their concern to Dr. Brown about the BHC revelations. They were clearly guarded in their comments to the press, but it's a start I guess. Baby steps.

But, as Tom Vesey points out today, what about the current batch? Where is the rest of the Cabinet and MPs on this? Their silence can only be read as approval of the behaviour of their colleagues. Do they really want to be seen as condoning the allegations laid out in the BHC report?

I can only guess that they do.

Shame indeed. And shouldn't the press, in the wake of Renee Webb and Ianthia Wade's comments, be calling up each MP and asking them if they support Dr. Brown as Premier?

Or are we going to go into another election where we're being misled, with a coup planned if the PLP can hold on to the Government?

The Bermuda Bravery Award Association is taking nominations.

Hmmm. Son of the Soil anyone? Larry Dennis?

With all the focus on unethical versus illegal, we still haven't really had the conversation in Bermuda that needs to be had on reforming the political system to prevent future BHC scandals.

What we need is a comprehensive statement on the values of public service in Bermuda similar to Canada's, not the current system in Bermuda where one of several excuses are predictably offered:

* The UBP did it.

* It wasn't illegal/I was never charged

* The Plantation defence

A couple of weeks ago a reader sent in a link to an interesting article called "Exercising Ethics" written by a Canadian lawyer.

Money quote:

Public servants are expected to perform their responsibilities to the highest ethical standard; and because they are representing the public interest in the course of their work, that standard is higher than that expected of employees in private corporations.

A conservative MP in the UK has questioned the new Secretary of State on the arrest of the Auditor General and received the following written answer:

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the arrest and detention of the Auditor General for law and order in Bermuda.

Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Women and Equality), Department for Communities and Local Government)

The Auditor General in Bermuda was arrested and subsequently released on police bail in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation by the Bermuda Police Service. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment further.

A devastatingly accurate Letter to the Editor from the always interesting "SAM from Warwick" today.

Money quote:

The point I’m making, and what South Africa finally learned, is that black empowerment is important, but it has to go far beyond just an economic initiative to redress the wrongs of the past. It has to go far beyond selective redress to benefit just a few or select individuals. As a black man, I am discouraged that my Government is creating narrow-based economic opportunities and not broad-based growth opportunities for everyone. A more serious issue is that they are leaving fundamental inequalities intact, or just sidetracking the old and present white elite with a new black one.

The benefit white and some black people received due to white privilege and black elitist privilege in the past, was done and is history. We cannot change anything about the past and the pain associated, other than remember, learn from and respect it. Reparations will not help, but we as black people have to stop justifying the improper behaviour of our present Government ... because they were born black and now represent a black political party publicly, but privately represent a few black and white individuals economically.

The UK conspicuously re-releases a paper on accountability in the Overseas Territories, and hits rather close to home on some issues currently consuming Bermuda (in case you hadn't heard there's a corruption scandal going on).

The Premier says "No Comment". No duh. More like "Don't know how to comment."

The paper urged Governors to keep a close watch to ensure, among other things:

* good governance including the conduct of free and fair elections, transparency e.g. in the sale of Crown Lands and awarding of large government contracts

* the unimpeded use of the police and criminal justice system in the face of corruption

* sound financial management, including adherence to responsible borrowing limits and prudence in entering into public private partnership agreements

* appropriate and prompt response to audit criticism.

Lord Triesman said some territories might think those issues are beyond the bounds of Governors.

This is from the Facebook group:

Students Against Independence and Government Corruption in Bermuda

THE PROTEST IS ON!

DATE: Friday, June 29th

TIME: 12 noon start

LOCATION: On the sidewalk in front of the Cenotaph on Front Street (in front of the Cabinet Building, between Court and Parliament Streets)

ROUTE: We will march along Front Street, up Parliament Street to the House of Assembly.

BRING: Your enthusiasm and a relevant protest sign or Bermuda flag (please no PLP or UBP bashing statements, nor any individual's names)

We need ALL of you to show your support so this has a real impact!

Spread the word!

Bermuda's problems have produced a scathing editorial in the Cayman Net News and highlights how the reaction by those implicated in the BHC corruption scandal creates an opportunity for the Caymans, as long as they don't repeat the dangerous path of the cover-up:

It seems to us that if Premier Brown, or any other politician come to that, has nothing to hide, then what is all the fuss about making the details public?

The situation in Bermuda has the potential to benefit the Cayman Islands, but only as long as we are not perceived to be following in Bermuda’s footsteps.

Business leaders in Bermuda have said the dispute could damage its reputation as an offshore financial centre and, typically, whenever this happens in the region, we stand to benefit from the subsequent flight of new and existing business.

The situation in Bermuda has since been compounded by even more troubling events, in particular an attempt by the government to obtain a gag order preventing the media from reporting details that are apparently embarrassing to the administration.

A reader writes in on "Damn those responsible reporters".

Its so funny that he can deny all these claims in 1990, and can answer all the questions about his personal life before they are even asked, without demeaning himself.... but can't answer the questions begging to be answered about his Public life.....

Good point.

Another legal reader expands on the question of questioning:

And here's another point to consider on this: the police don't need the DPP's permission or advice on how they choose to investigate, or who they choose to interview. Someone in the police was either too scared to ask Dr. Brown to come down to the station, or decided to treat him with kid gloves, not do anything and leave it up to the DPP to advise whether he thought that it was a good idea. Clearly, the police believed that Dr. Brown had relevant evidence that could have assisted the investigation, so why did they not even ask him to come in for an interview? Can you think of another criminal investigation where, despite the fact that a person may have relevant evidence, the police just didn't bother to even ask for an interview. I've seen people arrested and brought in for questioning on the flimsiest of accusations, and yet they didn't even ask him for an interview! Why?

Here's a link to a bigger one if you want to create a shirt or coffee mug.

Credit to Mike Hind.

So the Auditor General can be arrested for further questioning and spend a night in jail but the Police were prevented from requesting an interview with Dr. Brown with respects to the BHC investigation?

I've spoken to a number of lawyers who have told me that the following statement by then Acting Director of Public Prosecutions is just plain wrong:

Before a person can be questioned by the police there must be reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has or may have been committed.

“On the evidence placed before me I see no criminal offence disclosed or suspected. Neither have the police been able to identify any suspected criminal offence. That being the case, the police have no authority in law to ask Dr. Brown to answer any questions at this stage and I advise accordingly.

Firstly, the Police notes as reported suggest that they suspected an offence may have been committed, hence their request for an interview. Secondly, isn't questioning people how you build a case? My very capable and experienced legal team have described those quotes as "complete crap". Apparently you can't arrest someone without a suspected offence, but you can certainly invite anyone for an interview as the investigators wanted to.

Of course if you are invited for questioning you're absolutely entitled not to participate, but to say that the Police cannot question anyone who is not suspected of a crime is apparently "utter nonsense".

I never got around to posting the link to the petition calling for a Royal Commission investigation into the BHC scandal, but with the hijinks of the past week, now seemed as good a time as any:

BHC Royal Commission Petition

The UBP have re-issued their call as well:

While we recognize that the police have a job to do, the search for the person or persons who leaked documents has become an over-riding witch-hunt.

There are much more serious issues at play here, and those relate to the roles of senior members of government and the part that they are alleged to have played in the original BHC scandal.

It's time for people to start speaking up. Call your MP. Write a Letter to the Editor. Get on the radio talk shows. The cover up cannot be allowed to succeed.

The Police are raiding the Office of the Auditor General Larry Dennis.

The Government are appealing the Chief Justice's ruling against the gag order in the morning.

The cover up continues.

I was forwarded an email this morning, several times in fact, sent by someone claiming to be the leaker, as reported on ZBM news some nights ago. The email address is 'Son of the Soil' and it is clear that this document has been sent far and wide.

I have been advised not to re-publish it for legal reasons [the email has surfaced at Bermuda Sucks. You can read it here].

But I will say that as I said in the Gazette this morning, the BHC genie can't be put back in the bottle. Welcome to the internet age. Gag orders are useless.

[UPDATE: I originally posted the full email, but it was suggested to me by a lawyer that I not post it in it's entirety as it could invite a lawsuit, although other lawyers have told me that that is unlikely. So I removed the post while I ponder my options here. Judging by the frequency with which it has hit my various inboxes this morning, I can't see it staying quiet for long.]

[UPDATE 2: [the email has surfaced at Bermuda Sucks. You can read it here.]]

Candidate for most ridiculous political release ever is exhibit A from PLP.bm:

This week, Premier Ewart Brown and the PLP stood up for the best interests of Bermuda. When it became clear that someone leaked confidential documents to the media, the Premier and the PLP stood up for the rule of law. The Premier skillfully dealt with the situation. He didn't back down from his principles and he cordially came to an agreement with the Governor and Government House.

Give me a second while I compose myself. This one is just too ridiculous to not be intended as a complete joke. Surely.

Dr. Brown stood up for the rule of law? That's right after the police recommended further pursuing their fraud and official corruption investigation only to be questionably overruled by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Oh yeah, and the whole saga with the Governor and now a gag order was 'standing up for Bermuda' not trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

I believe the media injuction would be termed as an exercise in 'Covering Your Ass'. After the Premier was implicated in potential corrupt and arguably criminal behaviour they're spinning this as 'standing up for Bermuda'.

I'll agree that the Premier 'skillfully dealt with the situation' - if you consider head faking the press into covering the non-story of the confrontation with the Governor so he didn't have to answer the allegations themselves - which remain unaddressed and he now hopes to kill media coverage of.

And lastly, in one real classic of an example of Orwellian political doublespeak in one paragraph, the Premier 'cordially came to an agreement with the Governor and Government House'. Cordially? They really have no shame denying reality.

It gets worse though. Read the whole thing.

You see last week saw the UBP play political games (better than corrupt ones I suppose), and the UBP engaged in name-calling (gasp, versus allegedly lining themselves up for backhanders), and it was the UBP who escalated the issue (versus threatening to cut off relations with the Governor), and the UBP who will say anything to win an election (versus nothing to counter allegations of corruption).

And I'll hazard a guess that the quotes from John Barritt in the last paragraph are taken completely out of context.

My God. Tragedy or farce? I'm going with farce at this point. A tragedy is apparently what happens when a PLP MP is arrested and charged with official corruption and theft (versus an outrage I suppose).

And, the BHC scandal has made the international press.

Britain’s oldest colony was in the grip of a constitutional crisis yesterday after the Prime Minister of Bermuda threatened to suspend all dealings with the island’s London-appointed Governor.

To the consternation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and the bemusement of the first summer tourists, Ewart Brown, Bermuda’s elected Prime Minister, threatened on Friday to halt co-operation with Sir John Vereker, the Governor appointed by the Queen.

The crisis was sparked after the publication of a confidential official document last week by the Mid Ocean News alleging government corruption relating to the island’s housing corporation.

Dr Brown, who ran a medical practice in California before returning home to enter politics, responded angrily to the article. He claimed in a televised address that the document had been leaked deliberately by senior officials to undermine his office. He went on to demand that the Governor order a police investigation to find out who had released the document, suggesting strongly that it had come from the Governor’s office.

I posted it back in February, and it seems appropriate to repost "Official Corruption" under Bermuda law:

Official corruption

111 Any person—

(a) who, being employed in the public service, or being the holder of any public office and being charged with the performance of any duty by virtue of such employment or office (not being a duty touching the administration of justice) corruptly asks, receives, or obtains, or agrees, or attempts to receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself or for any other person on account of anything already done or omitted to be done, or to be afterwards done or omitted to be done, by him in the discharge of the duties of his office; or

(b) who corruptly gives, confers, or procures, or promises or offers to give or confer or to procure or attempt to pro-cure, to, upon, or for, any person employed in the public service, or being the holder of any public office, or to, upon, or for, any other person, any property or benefit of any kind on account of any such act or omission on the part of the person so employed or holding such office, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for three years.

I've been off the island for a couple of days so I've missed most of the excitement of yesterday, but the emails have been coming in and I managed to find a couple of the Mid Ocean stories about the BHC corruption through the RG's website search tool (see here, here and here).

From afar the police report is extremely, extremely concerning, containing allegations that would appear to meet even the most lax standards of unethical behaviour if not outright criminal - if true.

So while I understand that the Premier has decided that the best defence is a strong offence - by targeting the Governor in a cynical political ploy and attempt to use a unilateral threat of pseudo-Independence as a desperate ploy to defend his personal scandal - the realists among us will know that the leak shouldn't be the only thing investigated.

So should the allegations themselves, through a commission of inquiry or something along those lines. The leak doesn't look to be the only 'nefarious scheme' here.

There are quite simply too many issues now known to the public to go unanswered. It is simply astounding how many MPs were doing business with the BHC. Simply astounding. The number of allegations of kickbacks and backhanders is astounding. These cannot go unanswered. The people of Bermuda can have no confidence in the holder(s) of the highest elected offices until these allegations are answered. Some are quite simply answered if in fact they are not true, others are more complicated.

But they must be answered.

Criminality isn't the sole threshold now, ethics and integrity are; both the integrity of our elected representatives but also our whole system of governence and the credibility of Bermuda.

The public deserve answers, and not just to how the report was leaked, but what is and is not true.

Taxpayer resources, including the Department of Communications, the Premier's press secretary and anything else should not be used to defend those implicated. There is too much at stake to draw civil servants into the private scandals of the Premier and his Minister.

That would in and of itself be an abuse of Government resources.

On Friday, the answer to a Parliamentary question revealed that the final cost to renovate the Premier's Official Residence of Clifton was $1,700,000, where Premier Scott lived for up to 5 months (two of which were after he was no longer Premier) and Dr. Brown opted not to move into.

So, in case you're counting, that means that it cost Bermudians $11,333 PER DAY (based on the most generous 5 month timeframe) to house Premier Scott, and all because Mr. Scott wanted to show the Governor who's the boss when he didn't get his pick for Chief Justice, by claiming the former Chief Justice's residence, when the Laurels was available, renovated and secure for his predecessor at a cost of approximately $1,000,000.

$11,333 per day.

An interesting day in Parliament today concluded early with a short but fiesty Motion to Adjourn. If there's one lesson to be learned from today's events it's to check your work.

The Premier went on the attack with a couple of truly ridiculous arguments, attacking the UBP for 'falsely accusing the Government of waste'.

The Premier delivered a Ministerial statement this morning and the PLP website has posted this extremeley misleading statement entitled "Setting the Record Straight". I'm not sure how the Premier's New Press Secretary Glenn Jones (a guy I developed a real fondness for during his time at the Gazette) is going to be able to look himself in the mirror if these are the press releases he's supposed to churn out in an effort to hoodwink his former colleagues in the media -- where his job was to inform the public not deceive them.

Just to set the scene, last week the Premier and other Ministers provided answers to some UBP Parliamentary questions on Ministerial travel.

The UBP then provided those to the press and drew some of their own conclusions, conclusions which were based on the information they were given by the Premier.

The problem? Well, Dr. Brown would like you to believe that the UBP misrepresented the facts, but all the UBP did was summarise the numbers which they were given, numbers the Premier now says were wrong. "An accounting error" at the Ministry of Finance put some items in the wrong category overstating the Premier's $4,000 a night hotel stay and his $19,000 worth of gifts. Nowhere in "Setting the Record Straight" does it say that the wrong information came courtesy of the Premier, which resulted in the 'misleading' information.

He really is incapable of admitting that he can make a mistake.

It would seem that Dr. Brown didn't bother to check the answers to the questions before they were released, and hence today he was desperately trying to regain face. Rather than just admit that the numbers were wrong, he blamed the UBP for false attacks. Juvenile.

But here's the kicker, and probably why the Premier was so riled up: this Premier has been living it up on us so long that no-one said "That can't be true, he wouldn't spend $4,000 a night for a hotel room". The whole island just shrugged, it seemed totally in character.

That was the funniest part.

The other entertainment came courtesy of the desperate complaint that the UBP are using their allotment of questions during Parliamentary Question time to ask probing and specific questions - as they are fully entitled to do. If they didn't they wouldn't be performing their duty as an Opposition.

Even the Speaker had to admonish (gently, but admonish he did), the Premier for accusing the UBP of abusing Parliamentary questions. The Premier tried 4 times to tell that lie, before eventually having to concede and refer to the practice as "the UBP's frequent use of the legitimate Parliamentary questions" so that he could make the next ridiculous statement.

(Credit is due to the UBP's John Barritt for sticking to the wicket and not allowing the Premier to lie about the practice of Oppositions asking questions of the Government. Message to the Premier: We don't live in a totalitarian state. This is a democracy.)

But it gets funnier, even funnier than Dr. Brown struggling to remain composed and contain his temper.

So determined is the Premier to try and shut down future questions and avoid accountability that he tried to argue that Parliamentary questions have become too onerous a burden on the civil service to research and answer (You know the civil service that has grown by almost 1,000 jobs under the PLP's 8 years.)

Now that's funny. We've got about 20 people spinning yarns daily at the Department of Communication, but we can't spare one or two to provide access to information.

I guess we can officially declare that Alex Scott's Public Access to Information legislation is officially D-E-A-D.

A reader thinks he's found the Premier's $4,000 a night hotel room:

This must be it - Brown's Hotel in London - the Presidential suite costs a cool 1,700 pounds a night!

Two lengthy press releases out from the UBP tonight.

The first, on the Premier's misdirection over his cronyism, and the second on the astounding amount of money and time spent overseas by he and his Ministers - a $4,000 a night hotel bill in London!

Bermuda Emissions Control money quote:

To suggest that granting this emissions contract was merely finishing up business started by the United Bermuda Party, nine years after the PLP has been in power, insults the intelligence of Bermudians.

As for the Premier's attack on my families business, I am not surprised. It is his style to attack individuals, to deflect attention and to push the race button when questioned about questionable deals. I will not be deterred by this approach.

The premier is under-informed about the dairy industry. He should be aware that 1997 legislation placing an embargo on imported milk – the Importation of Milk (Prohibition) Act – was done so to protect the local dairy farmer. The Bill was passed with the full support of both sides of the House of Assembly.

I was a new Member of Parliament at the time, having been elected a few months before, and declared my interest as the CEO of the production plant that buys milk from local dairy farmers to pasteurize and distribute. Dr. Brown was also a member of the House at the time so the question must be asked if he supported it then, why is he now trying to make political hay?

Travel money quote:

I say hair-raising, because the information given shows that Dr Brown, particularly, lives a life of luxurious travel that would put an Indian princeling at the height of the British Raj to shame. Imagine what kind of hotel room in London would cost nearly $4,000 a night, for example, or how comfortable a seat on an airplane would have to be to cost you $7,900 for an eight-hour flight, or what kind of gift you would give on a three-day trip to meet some college students that could cost Bermuda taxpayers $19,057!

I've been busy upgrading my computer over the past few days, and thus a little distracted, but while I get re-organised I thought I'd re-link to the invitation for the invitation to Dr. Brown's T.H.E. scandal, in light of the news that Emerald level donor Kurron Shares of America has been given a contract to run the hospital.

A little donation here, a Government contract there. Everyone wins right? Except the public that is.

Louise Jackson of the UBP has it right:

“I don’t think anyone is surprised that Kurron got this contract. It’s a well-known fact that this company is run by one of Dr. Brown’s close American friends,” said Mrs. Jackson. “I and my colleagues are most disappointed because the Government continues to manage the people’s business, or I should say the people’s money, in ways that prompt more questions than answers.”

And of course the public is not worthy enough to see the details of the bidding process.

Psst, it's not just the security fence that got approved in record time...it was also the Premier's planning approval for Winterhaven, his private hospital, er, I mean 'research facility', as reported by the Mid Ocean News, two months ago:

The Mid-Ocean News can reveal that, just days before announcing the shock closure, Dr. Brown submitted a proposal to the Planning Department to convert Winterhaven, an historic building on South Shore, from a residential property into a healthcare facility. Dr. Brown's company, Bermuda Healthcare, currently operates another clinic in Paget.

The plan was resubmitted in December after Planning officials expressed "concerns as to how the building will be perceived and ultimately how it will be compatible with the nature and character of the surrounding area".

It was subsequently approved by the Development Applications Board on December 20, just days after being resubmitted. Typically, applications take nearly four months to be processed by the DAB.

Got that.

15.3 weeks for you and me.

A few weeks for Dr. Brown, whether it's a private business venture (which has a direct conflict with the healthcare policy he is implementing) or a supposedly critically important security fence.

A reader writes:

Even I couldn't believe the sheer chutzpah demonstrated by President Brown in requesting planning permission for a security fence around his (private) property.

The application has been made by the Department of Works and Engineering, so it's obvious that the taxpayer will be picking up the tab for this, which is, frankly, outrageous.

Now, this is not the same type of situation as when Pam Gordon's private residence was security-modified at taxpayer expense - at that time, there was no designated residence for Premiers, unlike now.

Firstly, The Laurels was upgraded when Elliot Mottley became AG (so far, so good). Then Jennifer Smith moves in and further upgrades are made to the property, including necessary security upgrades (still no issue there, in my opinion).

Then the PLP government starts to take the piss: having spent a ton of money to upgrade The Laurels as a Premiers' residence, Alex Scott decides that he wants the completely unsecure-just-a-hop-over-a-four-foot-wall from Corkscrew Hill Chief Justices' residence not 1/4 of a mile away from The Laurels. So hundreds of thousands of dollars are unnecessarily wasted in upgrading the security of the Clifton property, which is very odd, indeed, as The Laurels is actually a far nicer, far more secure property.

Obviously, we all know why Alex Scott insisted that he have Clifton as his residence: he didn't get his choice of Chief Justice, so he threw his toys out of his pram and exercised that one bit of control that he did have over the Chief Justice. OK, so we've wasted hundreds of thousands there [Ed Note: actually it's over a million and a half for the complete renovation].

Then Dr. Brown announces that he's staying put in his private residence on South Shore - no surprise why, it's obviously a very nice house indeed, with a shore-side swimming pool and hot-tub. If he wants to stay put, I don't have a particular problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the taxpayer being forced to shell out dough to upgrade a Premier's private residence because the security at that residence has been deemed to be inadequate.

No one forced him to stay at his private residence. He simply decided to stay put because his house is nicer than what the government had to offer, and we're picking up the tab, even after the PLP government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade both The Laurels and Clifton. To quote the Pope: "that's bullshit, dude."

From Wednesday's Bermuda Sun, Dr. Brown's Chief of Staff Wayne Caines delivers a real zinger:

"Since Dr. Brown has been elevated to Premier of Bermuda he has used GP1 for hundreds of official engagements; most recently he has used a police escort twice - it is only used in very rare and exceptional circumstances."

Asked what those were, Mr. Caines said he couldn't tell us for "security reasons."

A reader knows the answer to at least one of those exceptional circumstances:

In Wednesday's Sun, Waine Caines declines to comment for 'security reasons' on the Premier's destinations during the two times he has used a police escort. Perhaps he's just worried about the PLP's 'security' in the next election and doesn't want the Bermudian public to know that one of these police escorts was used to race the Premier to the airport to greet the cricket team - according to those Progressive Minds on the PLP blog. If that was one of the two most important trips he has taken in GP1 since he got the keys then it seems he needs to get his priorities in order.

I haven't really weighed in too much on the Medical Clinic controversy, other really than to comment on the condescending manner in which the public has been treated in this and Dr. Brown's inherent and for a long time undeclared conflict of interest:

Dr. Brown is the owner and operator of a private health care facility (which advertises heavily through Google AdWords by the way whenever you enter a "Bermuda" search) and is also actively involved in public health care policy. The Health Minister is simply his public front.

In mature democracies, the elected leader of the Government, and other public officials, are required to not only declare their private interests, but also resign any active involvement they hold in private businesses, but particularly those in which they are integrally involved in developing public policy.

So I continue to be amazed at the lack of attention that the mainstream press in particular has given to this aspect of the Medical Clinic.

There is simply no way, no matter how small of a financial impact that you might want to argue closing the clinic could have, that a public figure with a private interest can be operating in both fields.

If there are 30 doctors who have agreed to take those patients as we are told, and Dr. Brown's clinic gets exactly 1/30th of those 1,500, that's 50 new patients for Dr. Brown.

I should say that I think that you can make a case that the Medical Clinic should be closed, but I also think you can make a very strong case that it should remain open. However the public figure making that case cannot, under any circumstances, stand to personally gain a private financial interest from that decision - and the Premier does stand to gain if 1,500 patients are forced to get treatment from private doctors.

Some might argue, as one or two have privately to me, that it's not a 'big enough financial benefit' to warrant attention from the media. Well, where do you draw that line? Nor can we assume that the closure of the Medical Clinic isn't the first step in a plan to divert public health care services towards the private sector.

And it would become of even more concern when you have someone going on record in the latter part of 2006 about wanting to open their own private hospital in Bermuda. And Dr. Brown did just that in this Fall 2006 Howard article:

“I still have in mind the establishment of a private hospital — that’s still on my list for Bermuda,” he says. “And in politics, I always wanted to seek the leadership of my country and I’m still in that process.”

That statement expresses an ambition - which while reasonable for any private citizen - is wholly incompatible and unacceptable for a politician who has a current, and apparently growing interest in private health care, to be eliminating public health care services - the knock on effect of which is more patients into the private sector.

And perhaps more worringly, one could make a very reasonable argument that those two statements above are linked, and that now that Dr. Brown has the leadership of the country he can now establish the public sector framework for his private hospital.

Perhaps the article said it best:

So far, Brown has continued to mix medicine with politics.

Bermuda, we have a problem.

You've got to love the response from the Premier's press secretary in response to a question from the Royal Gazette as to the need for a Presidential motorcade supported by Police escort:

Yesterday the Premier’s press secretary Scott Simmons was asked if the Premier was under an increased threat and whether he was aware people found the motorcade pretentious.

He declined to comment, but later rang back to point out Cherie Blair was travelling around in two cars.

Oh her. You mean the wife of the current British Prime Minister, the spouse of the head of a nuclear state and permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. You mean the wife of the head of state of a country that has had terror attacks and recently had 15 of their soldiers taken hostage by Iran and is in the middle of a war in Iraq.

Yeah. Dr. Brown needs the same security as the spouse of one of the most powerful heads of state in the world, who were harm to come to them (not that it would here, but nonetheless) would set off international incidents with far-reaching ramifications.

Or maybe I'm being unfair. Bermuda's Premier probably does need that bodyguard to protect himself from those terrorists at one of those very important celebrity golf tournaments.

Or is it that no self-respecting celebrity dare show up without a bodyguard, it just wouldn't look right would it?

These guys are delusional.

Great editorial yesterday:

Indeed, instead of a new approach we see a continuation of the old way of doing things, at the same time as spending huge sums of money, with no apparent thought being given to how this expenditure is going to be funded in any kind of sustainable way.

As part and parcel of this, another PPM promise “to banish forever the attitude we can see in some of our representatives that they are elected to rule as they please for four years - and, equally, to banish the attitude of many members of the public that we must suffer in silence for four years,” is rapidly approaching the comical in its non-observance.

And it seems that the only “proper rules of conduct and accountability” that the PPM is willing to “insist” on are those in relation to its predecessors in office, although, heaven knows, such rules were sorely needed then as now.

And far from being a “forum in which the public can express their views and concerns effectively and without fear,” the current administration has followed in the footsteps of its predecessors and tries to “victimise its critics” wherever possible.

So much for restoring “public trust and confidence in Government” and listening “to what people have to say.”

Instead, we get the same old cozy deals made with hitherto unknown foreigners in preference to competitive local business interests, and those deals are subsequently renegotiated on terms that should warrant a resubmission of bids.

I should say that that editorial was in the Cayman Net News; insert PLP for PPM and it's 100% spot on for Bermuda.

Maybe my final comment before I truly sign off for the holidays:

Did the waiter - the only person who overheard the chef's arsenic joke - serve the Premier the food?

I wonder?

I know that I said I was on holiday until Jan 3rd, but I just saw this statement from Labour Minister Derrick Burgess and can only shake my head at the completely over-the-top nature of it:

"On Monday, December 18th, 2006, both the Department of Immigration and the Ministry of Labour and Immigration received complaints from members of the public in respect of this matter. As a result, the Department immediately launched an investigation. There was also a story on the electronic media about this incident. Once the Minister of Labour and Immigration, the Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, JP, MP, had been fully informed about the incident, and determined that this person was undesirable by any civic evaluation or standard, he instructed the Department of Immigration to take all immediate and necessary steps under the law to remove this man from the country forthwith.

To make a statement threatening to put arsenic in the food of the Leader of any country or Head of State, is reprehensible to say the least and is tantamount to threatening an act of terrorism, a criminal act of a most heinous nature. Such behaviour will not be tolerated by this Government administration, least of all from a guest worker in this country and particularly from someone who, as purportedly responsible as an Executive Chef, was in a position to make good such a threat. No modern democracy post 9/11 would or should, take such threats lightly or in jest.

For completeness, you will be aware that the work permit holder in question had resigned his position, thus his work permit and residence in Bermuda were no longer valid or legally tenable. At which point, travel arrangements were promptly made and the work permit holder subsequently escorted by Immigration Officers, to the Bermuda International Airport for safe and swift passage out of Bermuda."

Give me a break. The comment was dumb, but it was obviously just totally off the cuff and in jest. Chefs are notoriously foul-mouthed jokesters.

For the Government to equate a joke with terrorism and invoking Sept. 11th is just absurd.

But my favourite part is this act of intimidation to foreign workers:

Such behaviour will not be tolerated by this Government administration, least of all from a guest worker in this country...

Translation: Know your place you lowlife foreigners.

What a disgrace this non-event has become.

As I said initially, that we can fire and deport someone so quickly over a dumb joke, yet laud the Premier for his disgraceful and non-joking character assassination in Parliament says it all for me.

Grow up Bermuda.

Oh, and Merry Christmas.

My readers are a funny and cynical lot:

"And Furthermore Christian,

I can see yet another $102,000 per year position created for another of the Doc's cronies as "food taster to the president".

Fortunately the reader is Bermudian...so he can't be deported.

A reader sent in the following account as reported by VSB/ZBM on the 'arsenic' chef:

When I heard that the chef had been fired, my first thought was that there had been a major sense of humor failure. I think this has more to do with a few BIU shop stewards getting unreasonably bent out of shape than any real issue. A waiter came into the kitchen, asked which plate was for the Premier, and the chef replied, "that one there, with the arsenic on it". Obviously, it was a joke. How stupid can this Island get, for Christ's sake?

I doubt the reader is far from the mark in their assessment that this was probably more a function of the Elbow Beach employees' poiltical affiliations and an opportunity to flex their muscles to put an expat employee in their place. Even the complainants admitted it was a joke. No-one thought this to be a genuine security threat.

If the Premier had any class, rather than say that he was 'very concerned', he'd have laughed it off and told the hotel that there was no need to fire or discipline anyone over a joke.

Instead, the Bermuda Sun reports that Immigration department officials marched the chef to the airport:

The Bermuda Sun understands Immigration officials escorted Anthony Reynolds, the former executive chef at the luxury Elbow Beach Hotel, off the island today - five days after the alleged comment was made. He reportedly took a flight to London via New York.

I can only shake my head at the silliness of it all.

How's about this for a study in contrasts:

The head chef at Elbow Beach makes an admittedly dumb but off the cuff wisecrack about assassinating Premier Brown by putting arsenic in his food and is promptly fired and deported.

Premier Brown, Bermuda's head politician, delivers a deadly serious and premeditated character assassination attempt on Grant Gibbons in Parliament and his colleagues, various racial wingnuts and worst of all a Human Rights Commissioner jump to his defence.

Ok, two quotes today, this one from US Consul General Gregory Slayton speaking on the PLP Gala fundraiser and Dr. Brown's intention to have the PLP be wholly owned by his American friends:

...the US Government does have very real concerns about US companies contributing to any political party in any country (this is a worldwide policy).

I must admit to having read the original story in the Mid Ocean and wondering what the hell Mr. Slayton was thinking. But I guess, the quotes he delivered were just far too nuanced for most of us, including the reporter, Mr. Finighan, and were delivered in extreme diplomatease. I'll translate based on today's Letter to the Editor:

"Now I know that my friend Dr. Brown wouldn't do such a silly and unethical thing, inviting Americans to break the law, now would he...hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge."

The best part is that he is disputing the interpretation of his comments by the Mid Ocean News, which headlined the article "US Consul General praises Premier for 'upholding highest ethical standards'".

So I guess that means he doesn't believe Dr. Brown upholds the highest ethical standards if he went out of the way to dispute the implication of the article.

One more comment before I sign off for the night.

Julian Hall very cleverly omitted one very relevant word to Dr. Gibbons' criticism of Dr. Brown's PLP Gala and fundraising: "Foreign".

He said when he was the deputy chairman of the UBP that party raised a lot of cash from big companies.

and

The Bank of Bermuda had made substantial donations to the UBP when its head Henry Tucker was Premier and subsequently while the two largest law firms had weighed in with thousands of dollars in donations, said Mr. Hall.

Note that he says big companies, not big foreign companies, and the 3 examples he cites are local companies, the Bank of Bermuda (at the time local but no longer) and the local law firms.

This isn't to say that there aren't issues with local fund-raising, but political fund-raising is a continuum with foreign interests on one end and public financing on the other with local businesses and individuals somewhere in the middle.

That's very different than fund-raising from overseas which is very problematic. It's illegal in the US. In the US it's even potentially illegal to donate to foreign political parties and governments. They protect it both ways.

Dr. Gibbons criticism has always been that political fund-raising should be local. He's never said you can't fund-raise from companies. Local companies pay taxes, create jobs, contribute to the community etc.. They are part of the community. Foreign corporations' sole interest would presumably be securing access or a Government contract.

On a related note, former UBP MP Allan Marshall made a compelling case for publicly financed political campaigns in a letter to the editor today and has obviously put some thought into it:

I think it’s time for all political party funding to cease. As a solution, both parties will receive $1 million each per year from the Bermuda taxpayer via the Consolidated Fund. In order to ensure some level of protection for the taxpayer, a political party will only qualify for such a stipend if it has the support of at least 20 percent of the voting public at elections. A political party should be able to operate on a yearly budget of $500,000 which would allow the party to staff and operate its headquarters and carry out some polling during the year. Over the five year election cycle the party would be able to reserve approximately $2.5 million which should be sufficient funds to run an election campaign. The parties will also have to present annual accounts to the Charities commission to ensure total transparency. No other party fundraising will be permitted.

I like his suggestion and in theory I support publicly financed political campaigns.

The only problem that I've never been able to reconcile is how you prevent the parties from using outside organisations that are financially unaccountable. So there's probably some combination of public and private financing, but the laws will get quite complex as are the US's.

In the US they have a lot of issues with campaign finances, and frankly, the more laws they write the more ways around it they find. The latest major loophole being 527s, which are outside organisations which campaign for a specific issue or party but are not supposed to coordinate.

But it's very hard to police.

So I like what Allan suggests, but it's not quite that simple.

A reader remembers:

"Well, it's nice to know that Alex Scott would never support the PLP accepting financial support in return for political favours like, for instance, giving a sweetheart tenancy deal on a government-owned hotel to someone who bankrolled the PLP through two elections........"

Coco Reef is, of course, what the reader is referring to.

Extraordinary.

That's the word that came to mind while reading recently deposed former PLP Premier Alex Scott's comments on the ethical problems with Dr. Brown's PLP Gala Fundraiser and reflecting on his tenure and what Dr. Brown has promised. (More on the latter article later.)

Premier's Gala Weeekend Money quote (in every sense of the word):

"I heard some large figures. You have to watch out for sweetheart deals."

As an example he said gaming interests had lobbied when he was Premier but had been resisted.

If such a lobby group donated and gaming prohibitions were lifted people would make an assumption of corruption said Mr. Scott.

"People will say 'Oh, that is the same individual who gave a large sum to the party'. The party should be wary of this sort of largess from outside."

Wow.

The former Premier has admitted that a 'gaming interest' offered to make a large donation to the PLP in exchange for favourable treatment in setting up a gambling operation here.

This quote doesn't feel like a random example to me. Why did the former Premier pick this one to cite?

I'm not sure I buy the defense of his (or Finance Minister Paula Cox's) oversight in Dr. Brown's Pay to Play scandal, and I'm not quite sure what this means:

"What I was seen to do publicly and what I did behind the scenes were two different things.

"I didn't leave any pay to play in place and I think the Minister of Finance felt equally strongly about it."

But the next sentence suggests that the former Premier doesn't hold his successor's ethical standards highly:

Asked if he was worried it would resurface he said: "Let's wait and see.

"Everybody knew that I didn't support that approach to our business and anyone involved in it had a conversation with me and had promised they would address the circumstances behind it."

I predict, that before too long, the PLP membership will be having some serious buyers remorse.

The Royal Gazette covers the Cabinet Secretary retirement today.

It's unfortunate that he is leaving when there is a large restructuring of the social services going on, but he seems to have quashed the idea that the departure was not harmonious:

“I elected to meet with the Premier to give him my position. I do not know the Premier well but I have sat in Cabinet with him for a period and we have a cordial relationship. I do want to dispel any idea that Dr. Brown is trying to get rid of me, or anybody else. It’s simply not true.

Fair enough. Seems pretty unequivocal, but I'm surprised that the head of the civil service didn't know a Cabinet Minister of 5 years well, and described the relationship as 'cordial'. Surely there should have been more interaction.

I would expect however that we see more departures of senior civil servants on the heels of Dr. Brown's ascension. It was clear to me that internally in the civil service Mr. Drinkwater's retirement was a shock.

News picked up on the trick or treat trail this evening is that long serving Cabinet Secretary (Head of Civil Service) John Drinkwater has resigned effective immediately. Read into that what you want.

The purge begins.

Much more to come on this over the coming days.

Another perspective from a reader on Dr. Brown's comment to the African Heritage Conference where Dr. Brown said:

"In 2006 we are still forced as a government to defend policies that are aimed at empowering a majority of the population and made to consult with representatives of the minority to reverse years of economic injustice against the majority."

The reader says that it "Gives a warm fuzzy feeling on Doc's commitment to public consultation."

Which is a good point.

Even if the PLP had attempted to implement policies at empowering the majority (read black) population - which they haven't - defending proposed policies and consulting with 'representatives of the minority' (read the UBP) is part of the democratic process.

People who don't blindly follow Dr. Brown and the PLP (a growing number by the way) are such an annoyance aren't they?

The aspiring Premier's autocratic tendencies are showing through again.

A reader provides an interesting (and insurancy/actuarially driven) analysis of the need...or lack thereof...for replacing the Causeway:

With the Hospital, I can at least see the need for work to be done to improve facilities. I don't know why anything non emergency in nature needs to be in a central parish - so why doesn't the St George's or Sandy's ends get consideration. Anyway, as I said I can see need for money to be spent on the hospital. What drives me insane is the plan to spend money on completely unnecessary projects - top of my gripe list is the idea to spend $60 million on the Causeway.

Assume the gvt can borrow for 5% (optimistic over the long term, but easy on the math - if we do this on budget (he, he!), the cost is equivalent to paying $3 million every year for the benefit of the improved Causeway.

As shown by Florence, in years with either no hurricane or a maximum of say Cat 1, there is negligible damage to the Causeway. This scenario probably accounts for (even assuming a ramp up in hurricane strikes) about 95% of years - i.e. I'm saying Fabian is a 1 in 20 year event rather than the historic 1 in 50+.

For Cat 2-5, Let's look at Fabian - Causeway out for about a week, and
slow for a couple of months. We now have fast ferries from the East end which alleviate most cost to average citizens, so the issue is contact with (1) the airport, and (2) the oil docks.

If the Causeway is majorly damaged, and takes time to be repaired, chances are the airport is the same (ref: Fabian), so the lost week won't matter since planes won't be flying in either! The oil docks is a bigger issue, but let's be pessimists, and assume the lost time is a
month, which costs the island in lost productivity, and some extra costs to get gas to the rest of the island in a different manner - I can't see the cost of creating a temporary barge system to get gas trucks over being more than say $250,000 per day, even if the current Gvt got Terrence Smith of BHC to run it! Add in a hefty $2.5 million to rebuild, and the cost of this 5% of cases equals $10 million.

Overall expected cost = 95% * $0 + 5% * $10 million = $500,000.

I don't want to pay at least 6 times the expected cost to build some new "solution".

While I appreciate Burch's activity, I regret that he can't do a simple analysis such as this to realize what a completly idiotic waste of $60 million this is.

The other big issue with an out of service causeway that the reader didn't mention is emergency access for ambulances etc.. But after initially being ambivalent on the causeway project I've come around to the position that it is unnecessary, for the reasons listed above.

I don't think it will come as a shock to anyone that our Government Ministers are globetrotting on the taxpayers dime, but the real kicker in the article is the opening concern raised by Ms. Gordon-Pamplin:

What stands out is the apparent misuse of per diems, which total $73,355, which one would expect would be used for incidentals – but food, transport and miscellaneous costs of $36,000 have been charged to the travel account in addition to per diems.

Just in case you didn't get that, Ministers get a set allowance for extras that is supposed to include transport, food etc., but it would appear that a substantial amount if not all of that goes straight into their pockets...pocket money.

Because, if I can amend a line from Dionne Warwick: "that's what credit cards are for...."

Bumper day today for Governmental stupidity:

"I am at a complete loss to identify where this totally un-Bermudian sense of entitlement emanates from," he said. "Government is not the candy store for everyone to dip into at will."

Senator David 'Sweet Tooth' Burch

Spoken like a truly out of touch member of a Cabinet attempting to circumvent the Senate in order to dramatically increase their salaries and plunge the Parliamentary pension fund into the red.

So which should it be? The good news or bad news first.

Let's start with the good news:

While not yet finalized, it looks like the Government are leaning towards not demolishing the Arboretum to build a new hospital.

And now the bad news:

That project is estimated to cost $500M. Yikes, can anyone say Berkeley.

Oh, maybe there's more good news:

They're not looking to start for 5 years, which means they can be voted out before history repeats itself on a much larger scale.

The PLP might want to be careful what they ask for with respects to commissions of inquiry into matters of public interest, as a reader points out:

So now we're going to have Royal Commissions into matters of pressing public interest? Surely one needs to be convened regarding the as-yet-unexplained goings-on at the Bermuda Housing Corporation. And presumably the Auditor General's disturbing finding that a culture of corruption now exists within Government also merits investigation by a blue-ribbon panel.

It's heart-warming to see that the Government is starting 2006 as they ended 2005: hypocrits.

The latest example of hypocrisy is on display with the Government's desire for a Commission of Inquiry into the BELCO fire, because according to PLP Senator Walter Roban on VSB news last night, the Government is both the "protector of the public interest" and the "chief regulator of BELCO as a monopoly".

Now I've already had it out in the press with Education Minister Terry Lister who seemed offended that I thought an inquiry into the 47% failure rate in the public school system was of greater public interest than a fire at a power plant. He disagreed.

So here we are again, in the New Year, with our bud Senator Roban prattling on about the public good and the need to prevent a repeat of this incident.

Which is funny really. Because you may recall that Government vehemently objected to calls for an inquiry into the burning of somewhere in the range of $70M, when all is said and done, at the Berkeley incinerator, er I mean school, project in addition to rejecting calls for the arbitration to be held in public.

It's amazing how this nonsense is delivered with a straight face.

A reader vents:

"More to the point: what's the justification for upgrading 'Clifton' and move P into there, anyway. The Laurels had been upgraded when Jennifer Smith moved in, had security measures already in place and is a far more secure location than Clifton, which can be accessed by a quick hop over the wall at Corkscrew Hill. Absolute insanity. I want them to answer one question: what was unsuitable about 'The Laurels'. Maybe P was too embarrassed to pass by the seniors housing on that road, given the appalling treatment that this government continues to hand out to seniors."

It's amazing what some politicians will say with a straight face.

Tonight's ZBM evening news gave substantial play to last night's public apologies from two Cup Match players over an apparently unbecoming incident during the game. (I was away on business so I must admit to not being clear on what occured.)

What piqued my interest in ZBM's segment was Deputy Premier Dr. Ewart Brown's comments. The reliably unapologetic Cabinet Minister was gushing about the apology by the two players, how it "nearly brought him to tears", how it displayed the "depth and richness of their character" and was the "epitomy of manhood". Right on cue, Dr. Brown's trusty sidekick Rolfe Commissiong followed up with more of the same. Coincidence? You decide.

Touching stuff. Or not.

I can only conclude then that by Dr. Brown's own assessment he would describe his character as shallow and poor, and lacking manhood.

Harsh words? Nope. Accurate.

Think about it. Dr. Brown has never apologised for anything:

- not for his leadership role in the infamous deception throughout the 2003 election to oust Jennifer Smith immediately after the vote. 'We misled you because we had to' was not an apology, it was was justification.

- not his failure to declare the (overpriced) sale of his Flatts home to the BHC.

- not his disgusting 'Don't vote yourself back onto the plantation" comment of the 2003 election which he recently admitted he made for political gain, while directly refusing to apologise (only one month ago).

- not the 'Pay to Play' scandal

- not the recent misrepresentation of 2005's first half tourism statistics

- not the taxpayer funded boondoggle to Al Sharpton's Annual Banquet.

Nothing. Nada. No apology in sight. In fact, a direct refusal to do so in one of the worst cases:

"During his passionate speech, Dr. Brown also referred to a statement he made at the last General Election in 2003 – “Voting for the UBP would be the equivalent of voting yourself back onto the plantation”.

He admitted to making the statement for political gain, however, Dr. Brown also said he would not apologise for making the statement publicly."

After today's embarrassing spectacle, you can't blame the public for holding politicians in such low regard. I just wish the ZBM reporter would have challenged him, camera in his face, to heed his own words.

The Cayman's have been experiencing a lot of the same problems we've been having lately in Governance, with corruption, ethical abuses, lack of accountability etc..

And what happened in their election yesterday? The Government was defeated.

We can only hope.

The debate on the Auditor's BHC report is in progress in Parliament, and the strategy seems to be to say nothing, other than Points of Order and Information, and let the Opposition have their say and get this whole ugly mess behind them.

Which is understandable.

This makes me think that after the speech last night, the roll-out of the crime initiatives, the imminent Social Agenda mailing, and the moving up of the BHC motion to the first item of this Parliamentary sitting, that the Premier and his Government want to try and make a fresh start, putting their high profile scandals and failures behind them.

It's not a bad strategy.

The problem? It's probably too late. The public seem pretty convinced that the PLP are arrogant self-dealers who've presided over unprecedented corruption while failing to execute on critical portfolios. That image may be too entrenched.

We'll have to see if they get any bounce over the coming months.

It'll be interesting to see whether the idea of full public disclosure of the political fundraising gains any traction, either with the public or the parties.

But I also wouldn't allow this issue to confuse the ethical problems currently engulfing the PLP, and specifically Dr. Brown, over the 'pay for play' allegations.

We're all grown-ups here, and just like the BHC investigation revealed Cabinet level behaviour that was clearly wrong but not illegal, this is no different. You don't need laws in place to know what is and is not appropriate.

The 'pay for play' issue involves a private luncheon for exclusively current and potential pension fund managers with a sitting Cabinet Minister (see Trevor Moniz's comments today). To make it worse, the 'donations' were payable to a politician personally rather than a party account, bracketed "PLP" on the cheques notwithstanding - it is meaningless. That reeks.

There is no reason to just accept the explanation that Dr. Brown was raising for his constituency campaign. It is just as likely that those went into his personal account, based on the name on the cheque, as campaign fundraising.

But moving past that for now...

Personally I'm with the Editor of RG and Trevor Moniz - in full support of campaign finance disclosure. I'm also fully aware that it will curtail the amount of money raised by the parties, which on the whole is probably not a terrible thing, and that experiences in other countries, like the US, Canada, the UK shows that for every law is a loophole (just look at the 527 industry that grew out of the McCain-Feingold financen law in the US last year).

And it's worth pointing out that political fund-raising money is not in and of itself a bad thing. Political parties can't operate without funds. The issue that needs addressing is about creating transparency so that the public can reach their own conclusions on whether people are buying access and gaining favours.

Bermuda's community is very small and there is an increased sensitivity to things like political donations. Some donors might shy away for entirely legitimate reasons knowing that their name would be made public, our political environment can be hostile.

However, some individuals and business are clearly trying to buy influence, and some MPs appear willing to be bought, and that needs tackling.

This isn't however a simple question, there are many levels to this and ways to address the issue. Some of the considerations would include:

- whether to cap individual/corporate contributions?
- corporate vs personal donations?
- whether to prevent foreign nationals and corporations from donating?
- whether to allow fundraising from non-Bermudian residents (they are affected after all)?
- full reporting of total amounts raised, and on what timeable?
- reporting of amounts (only over a certain level or every donation regardless of size)?
- reporting of the central organisations fundraising vs individual candidates (who do raise money separately)
- do membership fees equal a disclosed donation?
- should we forget campaign finance disclosure and just implement public funding of the parties? (ie. each party gets x amount of tax dollars to run their campaign on - there's potentially some constitutional or legal issues that could come into play here - any lawyers around?)
etc. etc.

Those are just a few that spring to mind.

We also need to be wary of creating a new bureaucracy, and putting onerous reporting on the parties will require them to raise more money, in order to support the regulatory issues. They don't have a lot of resources as it is and will be hard pressed to hire full-time compliance officers.

Bermuda also, particularly of late, doesn't have a great track record on the independence of committees such as the Broadcast Commission, the Pensions Committee etc..

Before delving into some misconceptions though, just a quick comment on something that wouldn't be addressed by campaign finance disclosure: the misuse of the civil service/public funds for political purposes.

Just as important as campaign finance reform is the clear politicisation of the civil service that is going on, and the use of Government Information Services for partisan political purposes by the PLP, or any future government for that matter.

There is inevitably some overlap in Government Information Services for example, but things like the recent focus groups; the advertorial the PLP placed in Time shortly after the 98 election (which was deemed inappropriate but that the PLP never reimbursed the taxpayers for, as instructed); and the broadcast rule changes.

A governing party that abuses the independence of the civil service is both misusing public funds as well as taking an undisclosed donation in kind, that won't be reported. Currently, this is going on and creates an uneven playing field. We need to get resolution on that issue as well.

But back on to campaign finance:

Probably the biggest misconception is that both parties, and maybe more likely the UBP, are awash in money. Obviously the parties function through a combination of volunteerism and donations, but the amounts of cash support are far less that people think. Both parties struggle to raise money, particularly between elections, and it isn't cheap to run a decent campaign.

Public disclosure of donations would certainly discourage some donors from contributing, and I think you can argue both sides of the pros and cons of that. Ultimately however, I would tend to come down on the side of full disclosure.

But again, there are already ethical standards in place, such as Codes of Conduct and the Register of Interest that are being largely ignored: again in the spotlight, Dr. Brown didn't declare a real estate transaction with the BHC and according to Trevor Moniz didn't declare the pensions luncheon, nor did Renee Webb declare her broking of Government pensions to a company she was a shareholder in (although she did declare her shareholding interest).

We can put as many regulations in place as we can dream up, but if they're going to be ignored and there is no enforcement, then what's the point?

The idealist in me though wonders why we can't elect more decent, ethical people into politics, and stop accepting these abuses of power and position as inevitable. They're not ok and we have to take a stand against them.

I'll have much more to say on this over the coming days and weeks and would be interested in any ideas and feedback you might have.

Talk about trying to change the subject.

The Premier finally comes out of hiding, and Dr. Brown emerges from presumably his legal huddle, but not to address the pay to play allegations. Instead it was to try and shift the focus off of the Premier and his Deputy and onto the UBP. The dynamic due went on the offensive, expressing false outrage over yesterday's quote referring to the Premier as a 'political eunuch'.

As insults go in Bermuda's political arena that seemed pretty tame, although quite creative. But was it appropriate? Did it lower the level of political discourse? Not at all, it's pretty low to begin with.

Dr. Gibbons' comment referring to a eunuch describes a man who has had his testicles removed. That sounds like a rough analogy unless you listen to Pariament, where the PLP, and Dr. Brown in particular, constantly using the phrase 'testicular fortitude'.

A political eunuch would therefore be someone who lacked testicular fortitude.

Seems fair ... and accurate.

Reader Mail:

In the last three weeks alone:

1. Former cabinet minister admits receiving $200,000.00 in commissions for lobbying her own government for business on behalf of a private company;

2. Government changes rules regarding Bermudians selling land to non-Bermudians, whilst concurrently approving the purchase of Bermuda's most prominent retail space by a foreign purchaser;

3. Finance Minister lies to the House of Assembly, saying that control of Bermuda's most prominent retail space will be 'in the hands of Bermudians';

4. Premier and Minister of Works & Engineering deny allegations of financial woes relating to BHP, only to hastily recall a press conference to admit the allegation some two days later, when it is obvious that the press will break the story the following day.

These guys must be on to some kind of record, surely?

Well said.

I'm still waiting for the DNS change to be made by BermudaNIC so that I can officially move over to my new host and pick up the activity a little.

I apologise, but I'm betwixt and between hosts with two sites running right now and it's a bit labour intensive to move posts on the 'live' site to the 'almost live' site, so I haven't been posting much.

But while we wait, just a couple of quick comments on the Renee Webb commissions issue:

Whenever Cabinet Ministers and (particularly Government) MPs start to transact business with Government I get uncomfortable. But I accept that this is a small community and these things are inevitable, although I would prefer it didn't go on. I also appreciate that there could already be existing business relationships that shouldn't necessarily have to be terminated, and that forbidding any transactions with Government could discourage good people from entering public service.

However, saying that, Ms. Webb doesn't get it. The concern with the Maximum pensions issue is less that Ms. Webb was a shareholder in the company, and mostly - from my perspective at least - that she received separate commissions.

Now, commissions would presumably have been paid to Ms. Webb as compensation for bringing the business to Maximum, which is where I start to squirm.

I squirm because this means that a Cabinet Minister was lobbying Government for a private business transaction, which to me screams conflict of interest. It also raises the issue of whose interests Ms. Webb is serving, her's or the public's.

Now, quickly moving on the allegations raised in Parliament on Friday and reported in today's Royal Gazette. The key phrase in that last sentence was 'in Parliament'.

It is surely not a coincidence that Ms. Webb waited until she was in Parliament before lobbing the accusations against UBP members. Because with Parliament comes privilege, and Ms. Webb was more than a little loose with the facts and knows she can't be sued.

She would have been a lot more careful if she were making these accusations in a forum where she could be held legally responsible. And as Dr. Gibbons was pointing out repeatedly in Parliament, Ms. Webb had her 'facts' wrong, and I imagine those accused will be looking to clear their names.

But just quickly, did she not think it reasonable to point out that Dunkely's, the dairy firm of UBP MP Michael Dunkley, is the sole provider of milk in Bermuda? So what would be the option for Government? Not to provide milk in any of its cafeterias, schools etc.? And on top of that, did Michael Dunkley broker the deal and collect commissions? That would stink. And also - very significantly - were the terms of the transaction reasonable, or was the Government being gauged?

It's also important to point out that these relationships (or at least some) were probably in place before Michael Dunkley, Bob Richards, Grant Gibbons entered politics as they are all recent arrivals (mid - late 90s). New relationships, particularly those with a sitting Cabinet Minister, must undergo an increased level of scrutiny as pressure could more easily be brought to bear.

It's that side of things that makes me wish that Ms. Webb had been more responsible in her response. What I heard in Parliament on Friday was not an explanation, it was an excuse. And some people might doubt this statement, but I had withheld judgment on this story, until then.

Ms. Webb's response equated to more of the old: 'They did it, so can I.' Not to mention that the PLP, after taking over the Government, continued (and continues) with many of these relationships to this day. Which was the sort of farcical aspect of her argument against Grant Gibbons.

Ms. Webb was pretty much saying that people should be outraged at Grant Gibbons because the PLP have spent Government money at Gibbons family owned businesses over the past 7 years. How dumb is that?

Anyway, surely if it was UBP cronyism, the PLP would have terminated them immediately, to much fanfare.

Anyway, I'm not here to defend the transactions of UBP MPs or PLP MPs, they can all do that themselves, but this skirmish obscures a bigger issue of how do we maintain integrity in our political system. And how can we avoid Government being used to line the pockets of individual politicians?

I've got some thoughts about this over the coming days, because its an issue I feel very strongly about. (But I'm hoping the site moves over to the new host tomorrow and I can comment then.)

Dilbert does the PLP (popup image)

Debate has begun on the Berkeley motion tabled by the UBP:

"That this Honourable House deplores the management practices by the Government of the Senior Secondary School construction project at Berkeley."

And it started off pretty lively with Ashfield De Vent trying to amend the motion, before the person introducing the motion, Patricia Gordon-Pamplin, had made her presentation. The Speaker ruled that procedures require that an amendment cannot be proposed until Ms. Gordon-Pamplin has completed her introduction.

Then, Deputy Speaker Jennifer Smith, from the chair, took issue with Ms. Gordon-Pamplin, a Berkeley graduate, referring to the project as Berkeley. Ms. Smith was saying that this project was not 'Berkeley' but the 'Second Senior Secondary School', and that as an alumnus Ms. Gordon-Pamplin shouldn't drag the school into this.

That skirmish provides an interesting insight into the psychology and sensitivity behind this debacle.

The Berkeley Institute has rightly been held in high regard in Bermuda as the premier educational institute of black Bermudians. Many, many successful black Bermudians graduated from Berkeley - quite a few who are present in large numbers in Parliament, on both sides of the House.

What's particularly revealing about the reaction when the word 'Berkeley' is spoken, is that it concedes that what has gone on is damaging to the Berkeley legacy, what the school represents historically and the values the institution instilled in its students.

This project is such an unmitigated disaster, embarassment, and example of incompetence that they understandably don't want Berkeley's reputation to suffer from it. The PLP know that if they are seen to have harmed the Berkeley name, which they have, that there could be a severe backlash.

But that's entirely their doing and their cross to bear. If the project was a success they'd all be basking in the glory and anxious to attach themselves to it, and becoming part of the Berkeley legacy.

The PLP are aware of the explosive nature of this issue, and dread the inevitable - that they will to have to explain themselves to every current, past and future Berkeley student.

That time is coming and a satisfactory explanation is becoming harder to concoct with each passing day.

From Raymond Russell, former staunch PLP Member, community activist and BIU member:

�Bermuda is more corrupt now than it�s even been under the UBP (United Bermuda Party),� he said last night. �I�ve had enough.�

Amen.

Just so I'm clear on this:

Dr. Brown strong arms the BHC to by his property - one they rejected twice - by dispatching then Housing Minister Nelson Bascome to apply pressure, for double the market rate, unethically fails to disclose it, offers to buy it back below the current estimated market value and claims that it "flies in the face of the accusation they got ripped off" and that it "was, and is, my firm belief that BHC paid a fair, if not below market, price for the property".

Seems to me like he's trying to rip us off again and rehabilitate his reputation simultaneously. No wonder he doesn't want to talk about this anymore.

At least he understands the second rule of political survival.

RG Opinion (21 Sept. 2004)

Bermuda rot of a different sort

Over the past months Bermuda has been consumed with two major scandals that have cut to the heart of this Government's suitability to lead.

The BHC outrage has exposed a Government devoid of ethical standards, a moral compass or at least the shallowest of survival instincts to hold people responsible after they're caught with their hands in the cookie-jar.

Additionally, the as yet fully understood debacle at the Berkeley project has revealed Government's willingness to expose us to a huge and completely avoidable financial burden in order to cover up their incompetence.

In the past several weeks however, buried somewhere underneath these issues, has been a subtle shift on the Government's part to position themselves as financially accountable - without changing their own behaviour.

This illusion is unfolding by way of the Bermuda Track and Field Association (BTFA) and Hope Homes. While the full details of these stories remain unclear, what is clear is that these actions have exposed a Government that doesn't lead from the top down, but that expects more of us than they are willing to commit to themselves.

Bermuda is currently being subjected to a "do as I say, not as I do" Government, one intent on hoodwinking us into thinking that it embraces the very principles of accountability and transparency that it has intentionally undermined during their tenure.

The most glaring example of this is the eureka moment Minister Dale Butler seems to have experienced, perhaps during his recent trip to Greece.

Only several months ago the Minister proudly proclaimed his desire to fund charitable and sporting organisations, despite poor financial standards.

Now, only two months later, this same Minister is lambasting them for their lack of accountability with taxpayer funds, behaviour he wholeheartedly endorsed. Mr. Butler should count his blessings that George Bush's Republican Party hasn't set up shop in Bermuda.

They'd have christened him as their favourite "flip-flopper" with those statements, let alone his Cabinet appointment-induced Cuban conversion.

Both Hope Homes and the BTFA have been publicly scolded, by Government Ministers of all people, for sub-standard financial practices and a lack of accountability.

The BTFA was first in line for the hypocrisy treatment, receiving a public spanking by a Government that has advocated removing the Auditor, failed to produce a receipt for a $700,000 transaction, and builds houses and a school at twice the market rate.

Next up was Hope Homes, an organisation serving the most vulnerable in our island paradise. They were told by our elected practitioners of financial hide-and-seek that they will no longer receive Government grants due to a lack of accountability, throwing them immediately into a financial crisis.

None of this should suggest that these - or any other - organisations should receive taxpayer grants unconditionally, but simply that they are doing nothing more or less than what is being endorsed and honed into a fine art in the Cabinet Office.

It takes plenty of chutzpah, and an admirable lack of shame, to deride these organisations for their behaviour while we watch our taxpayer money disappear faster than a Cabinet Minister flying to their next junket.

True leadership starts at the top and trickles down. What we've experienced over the past few years is a Bermuda rot of the financial variety, and not the kind that's easily treated with a little antiseptic on the surface.

This rot has become so pervasive and deeply ingrained, that it has spread like a virus, infecting worthy causes and jeopardising vital public services along the way.

It's little wonder then that some of the organisations which do so much good, might have adopted the same standards of our unaccountable Government. This administration will have zero credibility in its newfound embrace of sound financial practices until it gets its own house in order.

A good place to start would be with the matter of the phantom $700,000 bond payment, the commissioning of a public inquiry into the goings on at the BHC and a full and public accounting of the costs and progress at Berkeley. These steps would reveal the full extent of the rot, and identify both the host and the cure for the disease.

Perhaps, to take a page out of the Hope Homes scenario, we should start withholding our land, payroll and other taxes until the Government gets their own act together?

I've been observing a rather heated, to put it nicely, thread over at A Limey in Bermuda that seems to have largely drawn to a close. It got pretty exhausting at the end with a couple of commenters posting some pretty hateful and ignorant white supremacist type stuff but somewhere in there was a reasonably productive debate that got off track.

The post essentially tries to draw a line between ProActive's problems at the Berkeley site and the idea that the credibility of all black people has been hurt as a result. I pretty much agree with Phil's position, but wanted to address a few things from the perspective of the political system and the parties, that hasn't been touched on yet.

The whole thing started because the UBP's Patricia Gordon Pamlin said that as a result of this project no one in their right mind would consider black contractors for a large project, and then the PLP's Wayne Perinchief said that the Government was now 'trying to save the credibility of black people.' Two similar sentiments, one on the negative side, one delivered a little more positively - but essentially the same criticism.

Just to reiterate, it is incorrect to say that Pro Active's failure by extension indicts all blacks, but it isn't a surprise that it's cropped up. To some extent, the PLP themselves have created this connection as a political tool - and a smart one at that.

At the last election, one of the major themes delivered on the doorstep by PLP canvassers was, 'If you don't vote us back in you're saying that black people can't manage'. The flip side of this argument, as someone pointed out to me, is 'if you vote us out you're saying that only white people can run the country'. The PLP have used this argument quite shrewdly in an attempt to prevent defection among some swing voters and quash concern over their performance in their first term.

Whether it worked or not I don't know, but I do know that it was used. I disagree with the sentiment in both the Pro Active scenario or the scenario of the PLP's re-election, but to deny that tactic was used would be dishonest.

Additionally, one of the other things that was expressed to me by a black Bermudian was that the black community put a lot of pressure and expectations on each other to succeed. Perhaps the best example is when young black men and women go off to higher education. Many in the black community will tell them that they're going 'for all of us, so don't screw it up". There's even an NAACP commercial on heavy rotation in Bermuda that expresses this with a young man going off to college and his father wanting him to wear a tie. It's quite a powerful ad. In many ways, Pro Active might have carried some of this burden of expectation, one I can sort of understand. This individual felt that while both Ms. Gordon Pamplin and Mr. Perinchief's comments were misguided, he knows where they coming from, and many in the black community probably could too.

On to the topic of black economic empowerment, or maybe just economic empowerment. An important aspect has been largely lost in the discussion of the Government and Pro Active's performance:

Government have been completely inconsistent, evasive and downright schizophrenic on whether the Berkeley contract was awarded on the basis of empowerment.

The Premier, when W&E Minister, wanted to have it both ways - as he did recently in his rambling and ineffective press conference. Mr. Scott was waffling in the face of criticism about the PLP's treatment of a black firm, and responded by saying there were other examples of contracts awarded that were successful (Dellwood I think was one example), but ended his comments with "who just happened to be black". Well which one is it? The PLP seem to want both sides of the issue when it suits them.

You can't have a policy of economic empowerment, or black empowerment, or of anything if you aren't sure what you've done and can't decide if you did it or not. In today's RG Ashfield De Vent goes down the same road. He picks up a line used by the Premier before the last election:

"Mr. DeVent said he understood Pro-Active had come up with the most responsive tender at the time.

"They were chosen on merit.""

I ask again which one is it? The contractor thinks it was awarded as part of a broader, albeit undefined, policy of empowerment. Julian Hall said as much in his press conference:

"He added that Cabinet Ministers had spoken out about a desire for a policy of black economic empowerment. But Government had not delivered the degree of flexibility and support that Pro-Active had been led to expect, as a small company without the substantial capital resources."

That's my biggest complaint with the PLP's claim to be supporting black businesses and following a course of empowerment. Where's the policy? Where's the support to achieve success? This is something I've written about in my RG column. In the absence of a policy it's just favouritism. Or is that the point?

A policy statement is limiting. It means all-comers can apply and it clearly sets out who qualifies, what the expectations are and what support Government will give. Selection is based on a clear set of guidelines and the process would be open and easily justified. Even if people disagreed with the methodology it would be laid out and the Government could say this is why we did what we did. Instead there is nothing but the word of the Government and a completely inconsistent approach to this, one the Government aren't even sure they're doing themselves.

I support this approach, and in fact the UBP, in the run-up to the 2003 election, proposed establishing an Office of Economic Empowerment to do just that. Obviously, they lost so it didn't happen - which is a shame because that proposal was a good one as was the housing plan - but what the PLP are doing is not economic empowerment. It's political opportunism, pure and simple.

If the Berkeley contract was truly a case of economic empowerment then Government would have announced that the contract was going to be awarded on this basis, or with this as a consideration, BEFORE the tendering process began - not after.

What happened here was that Pro Active was awarded the contract and the PLP pointed to it and said "Look. Empowerment". Well, not really. What about all the other small black contractors who might have wanted to put together a consortium, or their own new firm and bid? How were they empowered by this? Recently in a RG Letter to the Editor (not online) Dr. Eva Hodgson made a very incisive point when she stated that (I'm paraphrasing) "the PLP hierarchy is not all black people". Absolutely, but they'd like you to think that because they and their hand picked few are doing well that all blacks have been empwered. Absolutely not. It's just a new elite that is being created. A new 40 Thieves for the new millenium.

What seemed to occur was that the Government put word out to a few selected individuals that they'd win the contract if they put together a firm - even with a substantially higher bid - and called it empowerment afterwards. That's favouritism, cronyism in my eyes, not empowerment.

It didn't work in any case but economic empowerment couldn't have been hurt in this case because this was anything but. What was hurt I believe was the PLP's ability to go down this murky road again. I can't see the public standing for it...if we're aware it's happening that is.

Today marked the first day of a public inquiry into rampant fraud at a Government agency. The first to testify was the Auditor General.

Lest you think I'm day-dreaming this is taking place in Canada to shed some light and get to the bottom of a multi-million dollar Government fraud scandal.

Wow! Imagine that. A public inquiry after allegations of unethical and illegal behaviour with Government funds.

Meanwhile, back in the BDA, we have a Premier who continues to try and pull the wool over our eyes with quotes like this:

"The Auditor General may hold the opinion that something unethical took place, but I've never heard of any Minister being asked to resign based on the opinion of an Auditor General," Mr. Scott said.

You don't say? Actually you need only look to Ottawa for a recent example under the Westminster system. With a little Googling the Premier could have found this article describing Prime Minister Martin's almost immediate firing of his Ambassador to Denmark, who presided over the Public Works Ministry at the centre of the scandal.

But I guess I'm naive for expecting the same type of accountability here.

Linked below is the pdf of the just released "Report of the Auditor General on matters arising from an investigation into the affairs of the Bermuda Housing Corportation, May 2002".

Read it for yourself.

Download the file here

Ed Cowen, the former Bermuda Housing Corporation's General Manager, is firing back - and quite well I might add - after the Premier, in an ill-advised attempt to fend off legitimate questions, engaged in rumour and innuendo...after saying that would be unethical. The Premier, the leader of the country, casually and irresponsibly smeared the reputations of those working for the BHC before the PLP took over in November 1998.

Not to have their reputations tarnished some of the previous appointees and employees of the BHC have begun speaking out, including Mr. Cowen and Ward Young (on VSB news), a former chair of the Housing Corporation under the UBP.

They can certainly speak for themselves but a couple of sentences in Ed Cowen's interview with the Mid Ocean News on Friday are worthy of mentioning, specifically the sentences referring to efforts to push him out as General Manager so a PLP crony could be installed. Mr. Cowen says the following:

---Mid Ocean News Quote---

In his statement he added: "During the same year I was hounded by the chairman Larry Burchall and the Minister Nelson Bascome to resign. I refused and walked out when it suited me in the September of 1999. As a result I now receive no pension from the Government. They then appointed their candidate (Raymonde Dill) and it was then that the BHC's decline started."

"The word was already around town that my replacement would be Raymonde Dill, even though he was chairman of the Hospitals Board at the time. I didn't resign until it suited me."

--- End of Quote---

This is notable because at its core, all Mr. Cowen has is his credibility in making his case. But maybe he has a little confirmation from one of those he accuses. Why do I say that? Well have a read of a recent Bermuda Sun column by Larry Burchall (the first PLP Chair of the BHC) when he took issue with a column I wrote in the Royal Gazette (see my follow-up post here).

Mr. Burchall took a quite extraordinary position in his column. He began by making a strong case as to why the abuse of power and perks was bad...until Nov. 9, 1998 that is, when the abuse of power and perks suddenly became wonderful. See the quote below:

---Larry Burchall Quote---

"But �it� did happen. �It� happened for my �us�. Power shifted to my �us�. The power to award perks shifted to my �us�. The power to make change came into the hands of the real majority �most of us�. Not Dunleavy�s actual minority �most of us�. "

He goes on later to say:

"The �us� that was so silent and sat upon for all those years from 1834 to 1998, now has power. It knows it and it uses it. "

---End of Quote---

There you have it. Those sentences quite succintly affirm what Mr. Cowen alleges; that the PLP pushed him out because "it was obvious that they intended to use the BHC for their own personal gain".

Mr. Burchall's own words suggest that it wouldn't be a leap for him to see nothing wrong with using the BHC as a means of awarding perks to his political buddies.

I've intentionally filed this post under the "Crime" category because everyone, including those MPs who are still hiding the truth, know that what was done at the BHC was criminal even if the law is outdated.

I also intentionally held off commenting on this for the past few days until the Premier made a statement, which he did last night. The Premier's position at the press conference, although not surprising, has brought Bermuda to a new low, cementing Alex Scott as someone completely unsuited to hold any public office.

His obstruction and accusations that the Opposition's call for naming names and releasing the details are "unethical' is a sad indictment of the hollowness of his claim to be for openness, transparency, accountability, a Freedom of Information Act, blah, blah, blah.

The prior and continuing actions of elected officials have forever tarnished the reputation of successive PLP administrations and us all. Evidently Mr. Scott has calculated that this damage is less risky than to be honest with the public about what went on.

Every PLP MP and member who was not involved should be demanding that the Premier clear their own names by holding those who were involved accountable The public should be outraged and demand that this information be released and those who ripped off every Bermudian be fired and never allowed to hold another elected office.

Don't be fooled into thinking that this type of corrupt, unethical and yes - criminal by any other standard - behaviour won't continue. It will merely be done more discreetly than before as the same mistakes won't happen twice.

The only way the Government can regain any sense of credibility is not to engage in another cover up but to let the public decide for themselves.

I've been meaning for some time to upload the report submitted by UBP MP John Barritt to the Rules and Privileges Committee of the House. In it Mr. Barritt lays out the UBP's recommendations for "modernising the operations and effectiveness" of the House of Assembly. There's some good stuff in it.

Mr. Barritt sent it to me after this column in the Royal Gazette. This column discussed the need for more transparency and openness in the manner Parliament operates.

This is his second attempt at reform with the first occurring at the UBP's instigation during the first PLP term but being left to die in committee.

Let's hope these proposals don't meet the same fate but without Government's support it won't happen.

As we Bermudians like to say, a 'little porgy hole' seems to be opening up. This one is letting in the first beam of sunshine of public scrutiny that we hear so much talk about.

Today's RG has a brief but significant story on the opening up of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) meetings to the public.

Hopefully this will occur sooner rather than later. While all committees should meet in public I can think of no better one to start this process than the PAC. The state of Bermuda's public accounts has deteriorated rapidly over the past 5 or 6 years and the Government has been using every delay and obstruction tactic at their disposal to prevent the public from knowing the full extent of the problem.

One big hurdle remains however. The report from the PAC states that "In the meantime the Rules and Privileges Committee of the House is considering the matter."

MP John Barritt (UBP) recently submitted a number of recommendations to increase accountability in Parliament with a report to this same Rules and Privileges Committee, from where it never emerged. Let's hope that, with the Leader of the Opposition at the helm of the PAC, the same result will not occur.

RG Opinion (June 29, 2004)

More disputes to come

GPS or no GPS? That�s the question. But it�s not the issue.

If you look past the press conferences, the posturing and the adverts and focus on the protests, you�ll see something much deeper than GPS driving (pardon the pun) this dispute. The Government portrays the conflict as one with an industry that is reluctant to modernize and improve its service. However, the placards and angry shouts outside Parliament and the Cabinet Office last week cut to the core of what is really going on.

The cabbies don�t trust the Scott Government. They question its motives and don�t see them as an honest partner in the process. They�re suspicious that they�re being misled and deceived. This is completely understandable.

On July 27, 2003 Dr. Ewart Brown - the man also coincidentally at the centre of the GPS dispute - delivered perhaps the most infamous line in Bermuda�s political history. �We misled you because we had to�� the Minister proclaimed in justification of his leading role in the coup of Premier Smith, only minutes after she�d led her party to only its second (successive) election victory.

It�s not surprising then the taxi owners are wary, not inflexible, as the Minister would have you believe. Put yourself in the shoes of an industry that are obliged to negotiate with the prime misleader. Is it any wonder that they�re mistrustful, wondering publicly whether they�re negotiating with someone in good faith or are being deceived?

So while the Premier and his deputy, protected by Police from the very working class Bermudians who helped elected them, argued with 300 people outside Parliament the real issue went unmentioned - unless you listened to the shouts of the assembled drivers.

The issue is trust.

The mistrust toward the Premier and his Deputy was palpable. Comparisons to Fidel Castro were raised, the Government was accused of running a dictatorship and Bermuda�s leaders were labeled as �wicked� and �weak�. Anger and resentment over the systems financial ties to a PLP backbencher bubbled over. Accusations were even voiced about the Minister himself and whether he would profit from the implementation of GPS dispatching. Are these claims valid? Who knows?

It�s difficult to fault the industry for their worries. The Transport Minister, who became increasingly cagey about the GPS system as the election approached, might again be hoodwinking them. This lack of confidence in the integrity of the negotiations is understandable when new conditions are attached regularly and without warning. The taxi owners undoubtedly feel let down by a Government many of them worked to elect in 1998, and may have given the benefit of the doubt to again in 2003.

On a larger scale the PLP have betrayed the confidence of the electorate with scandals at the Bermuda Housing Corporation, Berkeley, Stonington Hotel, the Transport Minister�s sale of his house to the BHC, the allocation of airport advertising contracts and other unresolved dealings. The Government has sullied its reputation by cavorting with a notorious dictator while the specter of cronyism looms when a Government MP stands to benefit financially from this legislation. It�s no wonder then that the insistence on mandatory GPS implementation arouses suspicions.

The fact that the sunshine of public scrutiny is yet to come anywhere near these scandals, and the failure to hold anyone accountable, have contributed to this standoff. Like its predecessor, the Scott Administration has rapidly developed a reputation as dictatorial, arrogant, and untrustworthy. Couple these with a Minister who maintains that deception is a valid weapon in his arsenal, and you have a Government teetering on the brink of impotency.

The Scott Government has made their own bed and now they have to sleep in it. This Cabinet lacks the credibility of an electoral mandate, a vision or most importantly the community�s trust. The self-inflicted crisis of confidence and credibility, less than a year into a five-year term, isn�t unexpected. This hastily assembled compromise Cabinet is finding it increasingly difficult to govern because of the prior actions and statements of its Ministers.

Don�t be fooled into thinking that this dispute will be an isolated incident. It�s just one of many battles to come, fueled by the mistrust of a Government founded on a campaign of deception.

I'm not sure what the PLP's strategy for dealing with the UBP's motion deploring the "systematic misinformation and lack of accountability surrounding the PLP�s mismanagement" of the Berkeley project was, but their options were limited.

From what I can tell the strategy mostly seemed to be to have as few speakers as possible and prevent an extended debate. Speakers to the motion were, in the following order:

Patricia Gordon-Pamplin (UBP), Premier Alex Scott (PLP), Michael Dunkley (UBP), Jamahl Simmons (UBP), Cole Simons (UBP) & Neville Darrell (UBP) from what I understand.

That's 5 UBP and 1 PLP.

Notably the current Housing Minister Ashfield De Vent was not present in the house, being off the island for the past two sessions. This is notable because it was pretty clear that the UBP were going to take the motion up. The cynic could argue that the PLP wanted Mr. De Vent as far away from Parliament as possible. He's not known for being a great debater and the Berkeley issue is far too sensitive to be put in his hands. You could also speculate that Mr. De Vent himself wanted to be as far away as possible, unwilling to be the fall guy for his predecessor's mess, but I think that's unlikely.

So...in steps current Premier and former W&E Minister Alex Scott. This must have been quite the dilemma and probably played into the UBP's hands quite well.

Mr. Scott's dilemma was quite simple: allow others to speak, potentially deviating from the script or jump back in to a mess he's tried to leave behind.

This motion could really have opened a can of worms if poorly handled, so the Government wanted as few speakers as possible, minimizing the potential for mistakes. Additionally as a new, inexperienced and not particularly effective speaker (to say the least), W&E Minister Ashfield De Vent probably didn't inspire confidence with his ability to handle the debate - thus the sudden 2 week trip.

So who was to speak on the PLP side? I bet that not too many hands shot up when Mr. Scott asked his Caucus for volunteers? Surely no-one was willing to hang this albatross around their neck so it was up to the Premier - as the former W&E Minister and the man responsible for this whole mess - to step up to the plate.

While Mr. Scott clearly is the most shameless spinner on the Government benches (and that's saying something) he surely was reluctant to take this on. This reluctance would have stemmed from the effort he's put in to present a kind of 'born again' Alex Scott since July 2003. The Premier has worked hard since assuming the role of Premier to present a kinder, gentler face after decades of divisive tactics and blatant misrepresentations.

Days before the election the new Premier was talking about demographics as being the only factor at play, but shortly after replacing Jennifer Smith he suddenly saw the light, dropping that talk to profess uniting the community.

The accidental Premier had also attempted to distance himself from the messes of his 5 year stint at W&E. New Minister De Vent, probably the only person willing to accept a portfolio which included the Housing and Berkeley scandals, has been the victim of Mr. Scott's success. Mr. Scott has remained ominously quiet when the Berkeley topic came up in Parliament on previous occassions, preferring to keep a safe distance.

Mr. De Vent's absence thrust the born again Premier back into his old tricks and re-established his bond (no pun intended) to the Berkeley scandals, undoing all his hard work over the past 12 months. This was arguably the best outcome for the UBP, preferable to the debate itself. No longer could Alex Scott run and hide, attempting to stay above the fray. Premier Scott was up to his old tricks again, attacking the Auditor and making ridiculous statements to defend the indefensible.

This short debate on Friday pulled back the curtain revealing what many of us already knew - today's Alex Scott is the same Alex Scott we all know too well.

RG Opinion (May 11, 2004)

We're living in the dark ages

Once a week, six months of the year our MPs dutifully trudge to the House of Parliament to execute their routine. This rigorous schedule begins early at 10:30 a.m. with Ministerial Statements followed by Congratulations and Obituaries (a.k.a. constituency work) and then a well-deserved lunch-break at 12:30 p.m.. Two hours of political pandering can work up quite an appetite. After a leisurely hour and a half lunch they resume for another few hours of grueling heckling interspersed with the occasional discussion of important issues.

Perhaps that�s a bit of a harsh characterization, but for many that�ll be the most information they�ll have ever received regarding what goes on �up on de hill�.

We�re out of touch with the legislative process because the people�s business is conducted as if we�re in the mid-1900�s, not 2004. Bermuda is long overdue for an overhaul of our Parliamentary system.

In most modern democracies the process of governing is open and accessible. Legislative sessions are broadcast live on television with transcripts available afterwards. Your representative can be seen in action at a safe distance from the comfort of your own home.

Not so in Bermuda. We�re subjected to static-filled radio broadcasts where Members often forget to turn on their microphones and heckling dominates. The Senate is even worse, sounding like it meets in the North Rock tank at the Aquarium. Sadly this same audio feed is what the electronic media relies on, but that�s light years ahead of the print media. Our print journalists are relegated to the public gallery frantically scribbling what little they can discern between naps or staring at the Sergeant at Arms, who likewise struggles to stay awake.

All joking aside, the print media�s role is extremely valuable. The Royal Gazette publishes the closest thing that exists to a transcript of proceedings. Printed on a Saturday and in subsequent editions, this huge block of intimidating and uninviting text is the only easily accessible record of Parliament. Rumour has it that digital recordings of the analog radio broadcast exist at the Ministry of Telecommunications and E-Commerce in the event that years from now someone might want to know exactly what was said

The first step towards Parliamentary modernization should be the creation of a website for the Legislature. It�s shameful that in this day and age on an island which trumpets itself as a modern ecommerce jurisdiction, that we can�t access Parliamentary information online. What little we can access through www.gov.bm hasn�t been updated since the Great Deception of July 2003, or earlier. While enticing visitors with Cabinet, Senate and Parliament listings they�ll be disappointed with the resulting �page cannot be found� error messages.

Our Parliamentary website should include the house orders, minutes and transcripts of each session, in addition to contact information for the MPs. Additionally it should include a database of attendance records and a Member�s voting history, a document storage area for Budget and Throne Speeches, reports, papers and access to the Register of Interests. This website would probably be the first stop most voters will make when looking for information.

A logical next step would include the installation of TV cameras providing a live feed of house proceedings. This alone would make our legislators more accountable and effective, increasing our understanding of public policy creation. The absence of cameras results in very few of our MPs actually sitting in their seats. The ones who do bother to show up are often discreetly eating, sleeping, reading or checking their email. Some PLP MP�s have even been caught reading the Royal Gazette, although they�ll never admit it! You�d also see these supposedly bitter rivals chatting and showing a genuine affection for each other. Sounds a lot like school detention doesn�t it?

However, one potential drawback of televised sessions could be increased grandstanding, but most of our MPs are as lively as the dead guys on the walls behind them, so that would be a refreshing change.

Finally we should install a Hansard reporting system similar to the new court reporting system, creating official transcripts to be published online and in our libraries.

We�re living in the dark ages in bringing the legislative process to the people. Modernization is long overdue.

As discussed in the last post, Derrick Burgess spilled the beans about the PLP's nefarious intentions with the cement contract during Parliament Friday night. This is the second time he has opened his mouth and said something his colleagues probably weren't ready to address. (The first was during the runup to the election when he let the cat out of the bag regarding the pending Bank of Bermuda acquisition by HSBC which was before Cabinet).

Why does Mr. Burgess, a back-bencher, seem to have such a knowledge of Cabinet proceedings and what is his involvement in these issues? As head of the island's largest union, he has an inherent conflict.

I've never been sure who he is representing, his constituents in the union or his electoral constituency?

Michael Dunkley certainly has a way of drawing out the PLP during Motions to Adjourn on shady dealings that they would prefer to keep under the radar screen. The looming Bermuda Cement Company (BCC) controversy is no different and looks set to become the next Berkeley scandal.

Phil Wells is concerned about who Derrick Burgess is talking about when he says 'our people'. Most people will assume that he's talking about black Bermudians, but that isn't the case.

When the PLP talk about 'our people' they mean PLP cronies not black Bermudians. Black Bermudians as a whole haven't got a thing out of the PLP since 1998 other than lip service. However, a few individuals and businesses closely aligned with the PLP have done very well - under the political disguise of taking care of 'our people'.

The problem with the PLP's claims to be empowering the black community economically is that they are actually doing the exact opposite. Successive PLP administrations have chosen to allocate Government projects with no overriding policy, guidelines or framework. I challenge anyone to show me what document people can look at and say "Ok, so I might qualify, this is how I apply, this is when I can expect to hear if I was successful and if I wasn't this is why".

They are not empowering businesses. Quite the contrary they are creating an economic dependence on the PLP through contract allocation.

What happens is the PLP say we've given, or in Derrick Burgess's case - are about to give, this Government contract to Firm ABC and that is empowering 'our people'. In reality it is intended to ensure that Bermudians suck up to the PLP hoping to stay in favour and be the beneficiaries of Cabinet 'benevolence' with taxpayer funds.

The PLP have no desire to set up a policy or a department to deal with these issues because if that were the case individuals/businesses would be chosen in an ethical manner - those who most deserve get the contract not those who suit the PLP's political purposes.

Any government could achieve a policy of economic empowerment through an expansion of the economy. This however would require some forethought and even-handedness, so it is much easier to taketh away - as BCC seems about to find out.

I completely support the concept of economically empowering those who have historically suffered economic disadvantage, although I hate the term 'affirmative action'. Race however, is a pretty blunt tool to achieve this. I'd suggest that we establish a department to manage this and a transparent policy which anyone can look at and see whether they are eligible or not. Politicians have to be removed from this process to minimise the potential for corruption and cronyism. Only them will we see those with real economic need benefitting.

It's a fact that black Bermudians have been economically disadvantaged. Any policy built around economic conditions would achieve the result of empowering the black community, as well as those of other races and ethnicities who are equally deserving.

As it stands now the concept is being used to ensure that individuals and businesses are indentured to the PLP and link their economic fortunes to the PLP's success at the polls.

This has to stop as it is sending a chill down the spines of the whole Bermuda business community.

Political risk insurance anyone?

More diversion, no plan for action.

Bearing in mind that my information is 3rd hand, apparently the Premier held a joint press conference with Pro-Active which essentially listed off all the projects that ran over time/budget under previous Governments.

My concern is less that the projects ran over, but that:

a) this is the first (or second if you include the PLP BHC scandal) capital project under the PLP to involve not just contractors but the police and an Auditor who has raised the real possibility of fraud!

b) rather than deal with the budget/problems years ago Alex Scott preferred to deny what everyone knew. The PLP could have dealt with this a long time ago but chose to do nothing.

c) if this is the best the PLP can do around economic empowerment we're doomed! This project has set back small black contractors light years due to the ineptitude and scandal surrounding it. It's given everyone who opposes Government programs to broaden economic opportunity the firepower they wanted. Economic empowerment needs a plan and the recipients must be managed, not just given a cheque for $70M (now $100M)! The PLP have done far more to damage Pro-Active through this project than they have to help small black businesses.

But that's all irrelevant apparently because the PLP don't want to do things right, they feel that they only need to do things as badly as it might have been done before! Why? Perhaps because as someone recently summed up the PLP's raison d'etre to me as: "Yes you're getting shafted, but wouldn't you rather be shafted by people who look like you?"

Spin, spin, spin.

PS Apparently VSB is going to run clips of the press conference on the 12:15PM news.

Alex Scott, apparently with Pro-Active, just held a press conference on Berkeley (after both parties canceled separate ones yesterday). I missed it but will be looking for a summary on the 11AM.

If anyone heard it I'd be interested in the summary.

Ok, so I'm cooling out on vacation in Canada, pick up the Globe and Mail and flip on the news and begin reading and listening to news reports that make me think I've never left home!

What could it be?

The Federal Auditor General has just released a long anticipated report into the misuse of federal funds in Crown Corporations involving the channeling of funds into Liberal party friendly pockets (see story here) for little or no service.

The Liberals are in damage control mode and the new Canadian Prime Minister and former Finance Minister Paul Martin is struggling to contain the scandal with an election due to be called soon.

The similarities to Bermuda's own financial scandals of the past 5 years are striking - but there are also a few things of note in the Canadian situation that should be pointed out:

1) Someone has been fired! Fancy that, someone held accountable for their corruption.
2) The Prime Minister ordered an immediate inquiry, the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee is meeting to discuss the report and the report was discussed in Parliament! Wow, inquiries, committees and discussion!
3) No-one, not even the accused, have attacked the Auditor's integrity, or called for her to be replaced, or called her a racist - well, that wouldn't really work with a white auditor and a mostly white government would it? If only our PLP didn't always have that card up their sleeve ready to play?

So, we'll wait and see how this unfolds but already the Canadians are closer to reaching a resolution and holding people responsible that we are!

Premier Alex Scott delivered a long on rhetoric, short on details speech to the Hamilton Rotarians yesterday. Mr. Scott continues his campaign to convince everyone that he's been born again and isn't the divisive politician that his long career reveals him to be.

Sadly, I was amused by the following quote:

"I will readily admit that our community faces the problem of lawlessness, however, very little will be accomplished by simply locking up every offender."

This comment standing alone sounds reasonble enough, but couple that with an article on page 3 of the same paper, entitled "Murder trial may delay BHC probe" and it is revealed to be nothing more than warm and fuzzy sounding words that few could disagree with.

One of the few issues that the Government has led from the front on is the rise in lawlessness.

I'll put forward the Premier himself as Exhibit A. This Premier, while Minister of Works & Engineering, presided over and condoned the apparent misappropriation of $700,000 of taxpayer funds. These same funds remain unaccounted for.

Exhibit B? Refer to the previously mentioned, and slow moving investigation into the BHC.

Exhibit C? The PLP Government's vindictive and potentially illegal actions against Hardell Corporation at the Hospital and the Bermuda Airport, among others.

Exhibit D? Former PLP MP Arthur Pitcher's violation of health and safety laws while removing asbestos from buildings at Southside. The "new and improved methods of punishing it" was a long-hidden report that did absolutely nothing to punish the offender.

Exhibit E? The Government's failure to prosecute striking workers after Hurricane Fabian, clearly in violation of the law.

Why should we expect the community to show a greater respect for the law when our Government sets such a poor example and our current Premier has personally lead the downward spiral?

Larry Dennis has indicated that he will again be riding in on his horse to try and figure out what went on at Investors in People (IIP). ZBM continued the story last night with not much new.

The details are still very fuzzy but Mr. Dennis has a stellar track record for getting to the bottom of these messes.

As a point of clarification on my earlier post on IIP: my concern with Work Inc. is not that funding was withdrawn, but that Government projects/agencies seem to be riddled with problems in administering programs effectively and that the management controls need strenthening.

Government announced last night that a new Cabinet Member will be sworn in today at Government House. So there's one thing we know for sure.

VSB is reporting that Larry Mussenden will get the nod as AG (from the Senate) and be sworn in today at the Cabinet Office. This would be a big surprise that no-one called. Mr. Mussenden has managed to stay under the radar during the cabinet shuffle sweepstakes, perhaps due to his relatively short time in politics. If Michael Scott was overlooked for AG this would be a major setback. Mr. Scott has long been assumed, by both the press and himself, as the AG in waiting, an understudy of sorts.

RG however reported this morning that the odds are on for Raymond Tannock to gain a portfolio, Terry Lister to go to Education, Paula Cox to Finance, Ewart Brown to Tourism, Mr. Scott as AG and Ashfield DeVent to get something other than Minister Without Portfolio.

So much for moves to a smaller cabinet!

The only thing that is ever certain is the fact that the speculators will be wrong (me included)! But that's half the fun.

As a recovering C-SPAN addict I'd like to ask a simple but aggravating question:

Why is it that camera's aren't allowed in Bermuda's Parliament during regular sessions but are used during joint sessions of no legislative significance?

When Parliament conducts the people's business in the House and Senate we're subjected to barely comprehendable audio over the radio, televised reports with bad quality photos and the same crappy audio overlayed. The only record the public can get is an intimidatingly boring slab of words printed in the Royal Gazette on a Saturday and Monday.

In recent memory I can recall 2 or maybe 3 televised sessions:

- Mr. Cox's tribute session
- Baroness Amos's visit to Bermuda several years ago
- The special session for late Tourism Minister Allen (I'm not certian on this one)

There's nothing wrong with televising these sessions but I do have a problem televising these while not televising regular sessions! So much for open Government.

Why do I believe we should televise Parliament? Firstly, you'd see just how few Members actually are present, even though they are marked as present! (Many are in the back rooms relaxing or having dinner, show up for a few minutes to never return for the day, or in extremely rare cases may actually be working in the library!)

Secondly, you'd see just how adept our MPs are at sleeping in really old and uncomfortable wooden chairs! You'd also witness something neither party would like you to see - opposing members sitting together and having a friendly conversation where they show a real affection for each other!

But a little more seriously, televising Parliament would be a vital step in bringing a distant legislative process closer to a detached public. People don't care! Why don't they care? Because most of us don't have a clue what goes on in the House or Senate, because there is so little access.

What are the drawbacks. Well, maybe you'd have a little more grandstanding and playing to the camera, but a good Speaker can easily keep that under control. Perhaps we'd be treated to the cheesy phenomenon you see in the US Congress of bringing in a huge visual display to ensure that you get on the evening news. I think we can tolerate that in the spirit of increased access.

Bermuda conducts our legislative process under an antiquated system or rules designed for a different time. Modern technology is available to open this up. Let's use it.

Have you ever tried to get a written transcript of a Parliamentary session? They don't exist. Ever tried to check on the attendance of your MP? Ever tried to check Parliament's website to see the orders for the day and minutes of the last session? Ever tried to check the Register of Interests? Well Parliament doesn't have a website and you have to make an appointment with the Clerk to thumb through a disorganised and outdated set of forms which make up the Register or Interests.

One of the things that should be implemented in Bermuda's Parliament is a question and answer period for the Premier, much like the Prime Minister in the UK is subjected to. Hearing someone answer a question over the radio only gives you a taste of what's reallu going on. Watching someone's body language, watching a Member squirm when a particularly pointed question is lobbed across the floor, is priceless and reveals a lot more than an audio feed.

Bermuda needs to move into the 1980s and open up the process - show the people, who our MPs work for, what they're doing.

Let's get with the times!

The great casino debate continues unabated today in the Bermuda Sun. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who is ambivalent about gambling in Bermuda (which is already widespread). The vast majority of people I speak to are either adamantly for or against, with few people without an opinion. These two camps don't appear capable of talking, or even listening to each other. They feel so strongly about the pros and cons of gambling in Bermuda that communication is impossible.

The arguments in favour usually begin with the fact that we already have gambling, it will spur a rebirth in tourism through better entertainment and air arrivals and we'll benefit from the tax revenue. Sounds reasonable.

The opponents of gambling point almost exclusively to the negative impact it has on the fabric of society and that it isn't worth it. Gambling destroys lives, tears apart families and brings with it nothing but trouble they say. Sounds reasonable.

Bermuda is a bit strange when it comes to gambling. We must be the only place in the world that allows gambling but doesn't tax it!

The current batch of machines are due to be removed in July, but we're sure to be treated to endless legal manoeuvering and court challenges. Julian Hall recently stated at the Tourism Forum that gambling is NOT illegal in Bermuda. His assertion was essentially that the prohibition on gambling was a policy of past governments and that this has perpetuated into a myth of illegality. I'm not sure what the legal opinions on this are but surely the Lotteries Act comes into it somewhere (you can't even run a raffle without a permit) and Mr. Hall was being overly simplistic. I imagine this will become much clearer over the coming months while the lawyers have their say in trying to keep the current machines going.

Both sides of the argument are valid but my concern about gambling in Bermuda is that the corrupting influence will be as prevalent in the administration of a casino as in people's personal lives.

Bermuda is a small place and conflicts of interest crop up all the time, even among people with the best intentions. I need only point to the reluctance of MPs of both sides of the house to keep current on the Register of Interests as an indicator of the low priority that public figures give to their potential conflicts.

More worringly, recently Government has proven that they are incapable - or unwilling - to implement the necessary controls and transparency for the public to have confidence in the handling of public funds and Government initiated programs. While a casino would most likely be a private sector venture this would be a largely Government directed project and that makes me worried.

Over the past few years we've been treated to a myriad of scandals. The oversight and controls at any number of Government projects have come under scrutiny. Our own Premier has unapologetically obstructed an audit. The tendering and mis-management of the Berkeley project, shady deals and criminal conduct at the BHC, slow Police investigations and politicians not cooperating with Audits, should set off alarms.

If a decision is made (hopefully sooner rather than later) and Government supports the concept of a casino, Bermuda should think long and hard about the regulatations and controls required to manage this.

Casinos are magnets for corruption, we've got plenty of that already.

ZBM ran an extensive report tonight on alleged missing funds - and a key employee who might have flown the coop - at the Investors in People program. The story was a little confusing, but there were plenty of the indicators of a brewing scandal, the classic "not available for comment" and "didn't return our calls" from key figures.

I'll be keeping my eye on this one to see where it leads. The financial controls and oversight from Government agencies continue to be appalling.

So far we've been treated to debacles at the following projects:

Berkeley School Project
Bermuda Housing Corp (multiple scandals)
Work Inc

Mr. Dennis might need to get ready for another special audit.

Parliament needs to put some teeth (and organisation) behind the Register of Interests for Members of Parliament.

It is important that we know where the conflicts of interest might be for our elected representatives. As Trevor Moniz has rightly pointed out, the Register should be available online and not only by appointment with the Clerk.

A Letter to the Editor that I wrote to the Royal Gazette is in today:

Dear Sir,

Christian Dunleavy
WARWICK

Parliament this morning saw some more back and forth on the long delayed pensions legislation and has now moved on to debating amendments to the Legal Aid Act.

Could it be that the PLP members are so gung-ho on improving the Legal Aid system because they'll need to use it themselves when the Auditor and Police are done with them?

Perhaps they should declare their personal interest in it?

Isn't it ironic that we're holding parents responsible for their children's actions but our elected representatives won't take responsibility for their own?

[Royal Gazette: 'Failing parents face more than a trip to the principal's office', Dec. 1, 2003]

Bermuda has experienced scandal after scandal over the past 5 years, most eminating from Cabinet, yet everyone else is to blame. We've heard everything from:

• "It's the UBP's fault"
• "The Royal Gazette is anti-PLP"
• "The Auditor needs to be replaced"
• "I won't dignify that with a response"
• "It was all Jennifer Smith's fault"
• etc, etc.,

How can we expect anyone in this community to respect our laws, codes of conduct and take responsibility for their actions when our legislators display a total disregard for it themselves?

Money is stolen at the Berkeley project and the person who blows the whistle - the Auditor - is called a racist, and the now-Premier suggests he be replaced.

An MP has no health insurance so he quietly gets given it at the last minute.

[Royal Gazette: 'Auditor urges law change to prevent MPs getting 11th-hour health cover', Nov. 21, 2003]

A Government backbencher's construction company blatantly flaunts health and safety regulations regarding Asbestos disposal, yet no action is taken and a report on the topic is kept under wraps.

[Royal Gazette: 'Asbestos row deepens', April 25, 2003]

Why should children, or their parents, observe a code of conduct when our elected leaders won't respect an audit process. Why should "Town & Country" gangs respect the law when our own Premier has presided over a theft?

Until our elected officials start acting responsibly, and are held accountable for their own actions, how can we expect others to do the same?

The Bermuda Sun has published the text of E.T. (Bob) Richard's speech to the UBP's Annual Conference (which I attended).

[Bermuda Sun: �PLP falls short on honesty and integrity� (2003-11-28)]

Mr. Richards pulled no punches and said what everyone has been dancing around saying since Alex Scott became Premier - Mr. Scott, while Minister of Works & Engineering at least obstructed an audit but more likely endorsed, if not participated in, a fraud with taxpayer funds.

For some reason the anti-PLP Royal Gazette, who had a reported in attendance all day, didn't see fit to report on this hard hitting speech. Maybe the reporter was napping.

I'll post the link when it is available after 3PM.

Bermuda is in dire need of an Elliot Spitzer [CNN.com - New York's Spitzer becoming a political hot property - Nov. 26, 2003].

Imagine the field day he'd have investigating/prosecuting the Berkeley fiasco, Ewart Brown's BHC shenanigans, Renee Webb's secret Stonington contract re-write, obstruction of an audit etc. etc.. I could go on.

Sadly, Bermuda's corruption appears to be a genuine partnership between the Cabinet and some in the private sector.

I'm not usually an advocate of political prosecution departments, but Mr. Spitzer would be a breath of fresh air. He is a shining example of how successful they can be with the right individual in place.

With the obstruction, hints at a defanging of the Auditor by our Premier and the lack of public outrage, I continue to be pessimistic.

I've been a little surprised by the lack of comment on the Auditor's report so far.

One reason for this lull could be that it was been tabled in Parliament on Friday (14 Nov. 2003). The report will remain on the orders for at least two weeks before it can be taken up for debate (as with most legislation). The Government could choose to leave it on the orders for quite some time, stifling discussion in Parliament.

The UBP may have decided to digest it for a few days before taking it up as an issue in the Press. Alteratively the Opposition could be waiting to take it up in the House, when the sparks are sure to fly.

Saturday's Royal Gazette should have been a real eye opener to the extent of financial mismanagement under the PLP.

In one report the Auditor touched on:

- A $700,000 potential fraud at the Berkeley project, involving the Premier of the country.
- Obstruction by Government in the audit process -which clearly suggests there's something to hide.
- Lax payroll collection
- $1,000,000 cash write-off at the Hospital
- The well known BHC issues and Police investigation
- Mismanagement at the National Sports Centre

When you add these to the list of Cabinet conflicts and secret deals, the record of the PLP is nothing but shameful and all Bermudians should be outraged.

Yesterday the long delayed Auditor's report was tabled in Parliament [Royal Gazette Nov. 15, 2003: "Stop Obstructing Me"] and is sure to be the major story of the next week - at least.

Many observers speculated that this report's imminent release earlier this year was the impetus for Jennifer Smith calling the election (and dissolving Parliament) - thus stifling the evidence of widespread corruption and mismanagement until after polling day. The general disorganisation of the PLP campaign, lack of preparation or substance and stunned reactions of Cabinet Members to the election news suggests that this was the case, notwithstanding then-Premier Smith's pedantic denials.

The individual cases the Auditor cites have mostly been reported on previously so these won't cause too much of a stir, although the involvement of the Police is a major step. What is surprising is the blunt language and no-nonsense approach. The Auditor General has obviously run out of patience and believes crimes have likely occurred.

The big story here is that the man at the center of the worst allegation - the $700,000 fraud case that the Police are now investigating [Royal Gazette July 23, 2003: "Police probe $700,000 Govt. payout over Berkeley"] - is our current Premier - the former Works & Engineering Minister.

Let's say that again, the Police have opened a fraud investigation which will involve as a central figure Premier Scott. He managed the Berkeley project very closely during his time at W&E and can't claim to be unaware of what went on.

Premier Scott has always been completely dismissive of the bond issue and potential illegalities when it was first raised, but did nothing to dispel it. If the Ministry acted appropriately, and “...There is absolutely no irregularity involved. We have conducted ourselves properly, We are quite satisfied with the way we have managed it.” as Mr. Scott says then the simple question is:

Where is the proof of payment?

Some PLP apologists try and brush this all off as the mistakes of a rookie Government. But that is far from the case.

These allegations highlight an orchestrated campaign of obstruction by a corruput Government.

Alex Scott should come forward and produce the bond or resign. But he won't.

The PLP will attack the messenger as Alex Scott [Royal Gazette November 28, 2002: "Scott questions future of Auditor General" and Derrick Burgess [Royal Gazette November 26, 2002: "BIU's Burgess brands Auditor General a racist"]> did immediately when the initial allegations surfaced; Ewart Brown did after the revelation of his unethical dealings with the BHC [Royal Gazette July 23, 2003: "Minister did not declare interest in sale of house to BHC, says Auditor", Royal Gazette July 23, 2003: "BHC twice turned down offers to buy Brown property"]; and Renee Webb did after the secret back room deal with John Jeffries with the Stonington Hotel was revealed [Royal Gazette July 23, 2003: "Webb tears into Gazette"].

It can't help Bermuda's reputation internationally when the leader of the country, in addition to the major Union, is under investigation for fraud involving public funds.

Watch the rats scatter.

Mayor Mapp is off to a good start to his second term. He seems genuinely committed to opening up the Corporation.

I'd prefer to see every meeting open to the press and public - not just quarterly town hall meetings - but at this stage I think he is thinking out loud and developing ideas as he goes along.

I doubt any of this would have occurred without Graeme Outerbridge's candidacy. As few votes as he managed to get Graeme was at least successful in pushing this issue to the forefront.

Mayor Mapp's statements in today's RG about opening up meetings are a step in the right direction. It doesn't feel very convincing though, with the gradual release of minutes as being the proposed first step. He hedged several times in the article but there is some reason to be optimistic.

The only hurdle that seems to be valid is the need to provide privilege in the Corporation Chamber as in Parliament. This isn't an unreasonable request and should be something that can be accomodated early in the next Parliamentary session.

The saga of the Corporation elections continue with the news that current Mayor Lawson Mapp will run for re-election and will be opposed by perennial candidate-for-something Graeme Outerrbridge.

I'm not quite sure how Corporation elections work, but isn't that exactly the problem? No-one knows what goes on within the Corporation and there seems to be no desire among the insiders to invite scrutiny.

It's not often you'll find me agreeing with Graeme Outerbridge, but his platform to open the Corporation up should be embraced. I've never quite understood the need for secrecy behind the Corporation but it shows no signs of letting up. Mayoral elections seem to be a done-deal by nomination day, with handshakes and ascendancy based on seniority.

Mayor Mapp's decision to run has obviously upset his rivals. Rather than drop out they should have chosen to campaign vigorously explaining their opposition to his re-election. Even an unsuccessful campaign could shed some light on the reasons for the obviously bitter dispute.

Regardless, it is long overdue for the Corporation to hold their meetings and deliberations in public. The City voters and public who frequent Hamilton are entitled to understand and observe the process.

Any pressure that Graeme Outerbridge brings to bear on this is welcome.