Sir Stafford Sands on $10 debate rages on
tribune242:
THE DEBATE continued earlier this week over the government's decision to return the image of Sir Stafford Sands to the Bahamas' $10 banknote, replacing the image of Queen Elizabeth II.
On ZNS' Issues of the Day radio programme hosted by Krissy Love, callers voiced their support and condemnation of the government's idea as the show engaged in a wider discussion on race relations in the Bahamas.
One caller, identified as Eric said that Sir Stafford should not have been taken off the $10 bill in the first place by the PLP as he did more for the Bahamas in tourism than any other one person.
Another caller said that he did not see why the debate is continuing to be waged as Sir Stafford clearly had done much for the Bahamas.
Early in the week, opposition spokesman for Foreign Affairs, Fred Mitchell condemned the FNM's decision to return the image of Sir Stafford to the $10 bill after it has been taken off during the PLP administration.
Although generally recognised as the "principal architect" of the modern Bahamas economy, Mr Mitchell said that if the PLP were to regain the government in 2012, this decision would be one that would be reversed once again.
"I think it's an inappropriate tempting of fate in the face of the earlier dispute, and my position is the same; he should not be on the $10 bill, and that it should be removed if there is an opportunity for the PLP to do so at some future point," the Fox Hill MP said.
However, another caller on Issues of the Day said that if persons have contributed to the building of the nation - post 1973 -- they should be the ones who are considered for being placed on the nation's currency.
"Now as far as it pertains to Sir Stafford and his legacy to the entire Bahamas, his contribution is massive. So if they want to erect a bust of him over at the Treasury Department, the Central Bank, or the Ministry of Tourism, or whatever other areas where he played a significant role; name buildings after him," he said.
Another caller, identified as Pauper said that Bahamians need to mature and understand that while Sir Stafford was not a perfect man, he, like Sir Lynden Pindling, had made a tremendous contribution to the Bahamas and should be honoured as such.
"I think we need to grow up and be politically more mature. I don't know the reason, Krissy, like you said why they took him off the bill. I didn't have a problem when they put him on it. See. Krissy, I understand this to be us celebrating the good about Sir Stafford Sands.
"Sir Stafford Sands wasn't perfect. Sir Lynden wasn't perfect, but he is still on the dollar bill.
"So let's celebrate, grow up and be mature.
"Don't worry about all the bad things that Sir Stafford Sands did, and how the majority of us might be black and some of them was white. Let's think about the good that Sir Stafford do and the good what Sir Lynden do. That is why we put them there," he said.
The well-known caller continued to plead for Bahamians to move away from the black and white issue as the racism "baggage" needs to be dropped so that the populace can be "mentally freed."
May 07, 2010
tribune242
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Bahamians Should Be Concern About Lost Opportunities because of the country’s unqualified workforce says Senator Michael Pintard
Bahamians Should Be Concern About Lost Opportunities
BY KENDENO N. KNOWLES:
Bahamians should be concerned about the number of job opportunities being lost because of the country’s unqualified workforce, according to Free National Movement (FNM) Senator Michael Pintard.
He was making his contribution to the Bahamas Technical and Vocational Institute (BTVI) Bill debate in the upper chamber yesterday.
The senator said foreigners are constantly being brought in to take on thousands of local job opportunities – something he says Bahamians should be concerned about.
Mr. Pintard was referring to the 5,000 plus Chinese workers that Baha Mar Resort is planning to bring in for construction on the mega luxury resort property.
"It is with some distress that I heard recently the intention of one of the developments in The Bahamas to import a large number of foreign workers," Mr. Pintard said.
Baha Mar officials recently confirmed that the Chinese workers were being brought into the country in stages to carry out specialty work, which executives claim Bahamian workers are unable to carry out.
"At the time when Atlantis was in its early stages of its development the identical statement was made, which I also heard recently. [That statement by developers of the new resort property] pointed to the fact that there were not enough qualified Bahamians to populate the various positions," Mr. Pintard said.
"If this is the case then all of us have good reason to be concerned because the development pattern of this country is such that we must have seen additional developments such as the one coming on stream."
He questioned why there has not been anything done in order to prepare Bahamians to take advantage of these opportunities.
"I recall quite distinctly drywall courses being offered at BTVI in conjunction with Atlantis to create a cadre of workers in order to take advantage of the opportunity and any other subsequent opportunities," he said.
"Again, it is crucial that we never find ourselves in a similar position in the future. It is my hope that in the execution of what emerges from this bill that we put ourselves in a position where we carefully assess the emerging needs on the horizon in order to prepare our population to be the chief benefactor of these opportunities. BTVI must also continue to deepen its relationship with industry partners locally, nationally and internationally. Luckily this wonderful bill speaks specifically to this issue."
He continued: "It is important for us to train persons to populate all fields in technical and vocational areas, including the fields that others are claiming we do not have the requisite skills."
May 6, 2010
jonesbahamas
BY KENDENO N. KNOWLES:
Bahamians should be concerned about the number of job opportunities being lost because of the country’s unqualified workforce, according to Free National Movement (FNM) Senator Michael Pintard.
He was making his contribution to the Bahamas Technical and Vocational Institute (BTVI) Bill debate in the upper chamber yesterday.
The senator said foreigners are constantly being brought in to take on thousands of local job opportunities – something he says Bahamians should be concerned about.
Mr. Pintard was referring to the 5,000 plus Chinese workers that Baha Mar Resort is planning to bring in for construction on the mega luxury resort property.
"It is with some distress that I heard recently the intention of one of the developments in The Bahamas to import a large number of foreign workers," Mr. Pintard said.
Baha Mar officials recently confirmed that the Chinese workers were being brought into the country in stages to carry out specialty work, which executives claim Bahamian workers are unable to carry out.
"At the time when Atlantis was in its early stages of its development the identical statement was made, which I also heard recently. [That statement by developers of the new resort property] pointed to the fact that there were not enough qualified Bahamians to populate the various positions," Mr. Pintard said.
"If this is the case then all of us have good reason to be concerned because the development pattern of this country is such that we must have seen additional developments such as the one coming on stream."
He questioned why there has not been anything done in order to prepare Bahamians to take advantage of these opportunities.
"I recall quite distinctly drywall courses being offered at BTVI in conjunction with Atlantis to create a cadre of workers in order to take advantage of the opportunity and any other subsequent opportunities," he said.
"Again, it is crucial that we never find ourselves in a similar position in the future. It is my hope that in the execution of what emerges from this bill that we put ourselves in a position where we carefully assess the emerging needs on the horizon in order to prepare our population to be the chief benefactor of these opportunities. BTVI must also continue to deepen its relationship with industry partners locally, nationally and internationally. Luckily this wonderful bill speaks specifically to this issue."
He continued: "It is important for us to train persons to populate all fields in technical and vocational areas, including the fields that others are claiming we do not have the requisite skills."
May 6, 2010
jonesbahamas
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Confidential report: water plant would have made $4m loss with Bahamian group BK Water
Confidential report: water plant would have made $4m loss with Bahamian group
By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor:
A CONFIDENTIAL review conducted for former Prime Minister Perry Christie on the "faulty and chaotic" bidding process for the Arawak Cay reverse osmosis plant found that there would have been "a loss of $4-$5 million" during the plant's life had the Water & Sewerage Corporation gone with a Bahamian investor group's bid.
The January 25, 2006, review carried out for Mr Christie by financial advisor Deepak Bhatnagar described the "introduction" of BK Water - a group headed by current PLP Senator Jerome Fitzgerald and Mark Finlayson - into the bidding process, and the issuance of a conditional acceptance of its offer, as "not in order", citing numerous reasons.
The report detailed how then-Water & Sewerage Corporation general manager, Abraham Butler, on November 8, 2005, made a recommendation that BK Water be awarded the Arawak Cay contract following a November 4, 2005, meeting with "the Hon. Minister of Works" who, at the time, was Bradley Roberts.
Mr Bhatnagar's report indicates that the November 4, 2005, meeting was designed to see how any obstacles preventing the award of the contract to BK Water - whose members are well-known PLP members and supporters - could be overcome.
"The (November 4) meeting 'authorised' a second review to permit administrators and the accountants of Water & Sewerage to evaluate differences or variations that 'prevents the execution of a contract between Water & Sewerage Corporation and BK/Veolia'," Mr Bhatnagar's report said.
Following these goings on, Mr Butler on November 11, 2005, sent a letter informing BK Water that it had won the Arawak Cay contract subject to Cabinet approval. Such approval was not forthcoming.
Mr Bhatnagar's report appears to contradict assertions by Mr Roberts that he had no involvement with the Arawak Cay reverse osmosis plant contract, referring to "discussions held on price, technical and legal issues" involving the Veolia/BK Water bid that were followed "by a meeting between Water & Sewerage, Veolia and the Minister of Works on October 7, 2005."
As a result: "Minister (Mr Roberts) instructed both parties to resume discussions and resolve by October 14, 2005, inclusive of a revised pricing policy by Veolia." BK Water was Veolia's Bahamian partner.
And Mr Bhatnagar's report refers to "further discussions held between Veolia, Minister and chairman in Barbados" at a conference, with a revised proposal received from Veolia/BK Water on October 19, 2005.
The report seems at odds with Mr Roberts' claims that allegations linking him to negotiations with Veolia/BK Water over the Arawak Cay plant were "utter BS".
"In general, it appears that the procedure followed in consideration of the bids by the Board and management of Water & Sewerage for the Arawak plant is faulty and chaotic, and I have detailed my findings based on my examination of the Board Minutes, which indicates that there is no proper record of consideration of the bids and/or approval of the bids right up to the issuance of the conditional letter of acceptance to BK Water," Mr Bhatnagar told the then-Prime Minister.
"A similar faulty procedure was followed in the Blue Hills reverse osmosis plant project, whereby at one stage Biwater was agreed to be issued a letter of acceptance. This has resulted in Water & Sewerage having to face litigation from Biwater in the form of an injunction."
Outlining the confused bidding process for the contract to build and operate the Arawak Cay reverse osmosis plant, which would sell water to the Water & Sewerage Corporation, Mr Bhatnagar's report details how the original process was annulled on June 22, 2005, by the Corporation's Board. Instructions were then issued to negotiate with Veolia.
No mention was made of BK Water at this point, reflecting the Board's desire to deal with Veolia instead. It wanted to develop a strategic partnership with "a viable organisation", and Mr Bhatnagar said: "This surely meant the Board was to create a strategic partnership with Veolia and not BK.
"The latter was formed only for the purpose of the Arawak Cay reverse osmosis plant, and does not have any track record either in the Bahamas or internationally. As per letter from Higgs & Johnson, BK Water is controlled by Messrs Jerome Fitzgerald, Mark Finlayson, Prince Wallace and Judson Wilmott."
Handing the contract to BK did not meet the "strategic partnership with a viable international organisation" condition, Mr Bhatnagar wrote, because Veolia would not be involved in the Arawak Cay plant's operations. Nor was there a true joint venture partnership between BK Water and Veolia, but a contractor/sub-contractor relationship.
"The Board ought to have pursued negotiations with Veolia," Mr Bhatnagar concluded.
"But the process got polluted with the emergence of BK Water and Board's entertaining to deal with BK Water rather than Veolia.
"The focus of forming a 'strategic partnership with an international company' was altogether lost."
May 06, 2010
tribune242
By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor:
A CONFIDENTIAL review conducted for former Prime Minister Perry Christie on the "faulty and chaotic" bidding process for the Arawak Cay reverse osmosis plant found that there would have been "a loss of $4-$5 million" during the plant's life had the Water & Sewerage Corporation gone with a Bahamian investor group's bid.
The January 25, 2006, review carried out for Mr Christie by financial advisor Deepak Bhatnagar described the "introduction" of BK Water - a group headed by current PLP Senator Jerome Fitzgerald and Mark Finlayson - into the bidding process, and the issuance of a conditional acceptance of its offer, as "not in order", citing numerous reasons.
The report detailed how then-Water & Sewerage Corporation general manager, Abraham Butler, on November 8, 2005, made a recommendation that BK Water be awarded the Arawak Cay contract following a November 4, 2005, meeting with "the Hon. Minister of Works" who, at the time, was Bradley Roberts.
Mr Bhatnagar's report indicates that the November 4, 2005, meeting was designed to see how any obstacles preventing the award of the contract to BK Water - whose members are well-known PLP members and supporters - could be overcome.
"The (November 4) meeting 'authorised' a second review to permit administrators and the accountants of Water & Sewerage to evaluate differences or variations that 'prevents the execution of a contract between Water & Sewerage Corporation and BK/Veolia'," Mr Bhatnagar's report said.
Following these goings on, Mr Butler on November 11, 2005, sent a letter informing BK Water that it had won the Arawak Cay contract subject to Cabinet approval. Such approval was not forthcoming.
Mr Bhatnagar's report appears to contradict assertions by Mr Roberts that he had no involvement with the Arawak Cay reverse osmosis plant contract, referring to "discussions held on price, technical and legal issues" involving the Veolia/BK Water bid that were followed "by a meeting between Water & Sewerage, Veolia and the Minister of Works on October 7, 2005."
As a result: "Minister (Mr Roberts) instructed both parties to resume discussions and resolve by October 14, 2005, inclusive of a revised pricing policy by Veolia." BK Water was Veolia's Bahamian partner.
And Mr Bhatnagar's report refers to "further discussions held between Veolia, Minister and chairman in Barbados" at a conference, with a revised proposal received from Veolia/BK Water on October 19, 2005.
The report seems at odds with Mr Roberts' claims that allegations linking him to negotiations with Veolia/BK Water over the Arawak Cay plant were "utter BS".
"In general, it appears that the procedure followed in consideration of the bids by the Board and management of Water & Sewerage for the Arawak plant is faulty and chaotic, and I have detailed my findings based on my examination of the Board Minutes, which indicates that there is no proper record of consideration of the bids and/or approval of the bids right up to the issuance of the conditional letter of acceptance to BK Water," Mr Bhatnagar told the then-Prime Minister.
"A similar faulty procedure was followed in the Blue Hills reverse osmosis plant project, whereby at one stage Biwater was agreed to be issued a letter of acceptance. This has resulted in Water & Sewerage having to face litigation from Biwater in the form of an injunction."
Outlining the confused bidding process for the contract to build and operate the Arawak Cay reverse osmosis plant, which would sell water to the Water & Sewerage Corporation, Mr Bhatnagar's report details how the original process was annulled on June 22, 2005, by the Corporation's Board. Instructions were then issued to negotiate with Veolia.
No mention was made of BK Water at this point, reflecting the Board's desire to deal with Veolia instead. It wanted to develop a strategic partnership with "a viable organisation", and Mr Bhatnagar said: "This surely meant the Board was to create a strategic partnership with Veolia and not BK.
"The latter was formed only for the purpose of the Arawak Cay reverse osmosis plant, and does not have any track record either in the Bahamas or internationally. As per letter from Higgs & Johnson, BK Water is controlled by Messrs Jerome Fitzgerald, Mark Finlayson, Prince Wallace and Judson Wilmott."
Handing the contract to BK did not meet the "strategic partnership with a viable international organisation" condition, Mr Bhatnagar wrote, because Veolia would not be involved in the Arawak Cay plant's operations. Nor was there a true joint venture partnership between BK Water and Veolia, but a contractor/sub-contractor relationship.
"The Board ought to have pursued negotiations with Veolia," Mr Bhatnagar concluded.
"But the process got polluted with the emergence of BK Water and Board's entertaining to deal with BK Water rather than Veolia.
"The focus of forming a 'strategic partnership with an international company' was altogether lost."
May 06, 2010
tribune242
Bradley Roberts denies conspiring with former Water and Sewerage chairman Don Demeritte
Bradley Roberts denies conspiring with former Water and Sewerage chairman
By MEGAN REYNOLDS
Tribune Staff Reporter
mreynolds@tribunemedia.net:
PLP chairman Bradley Roberts has denied claims he conspired with the former Water and Sewerage Corporation chairman to offer a lucrative contract to a PLP member as alleged during testimony in an industrial tribunal.
The former Minister of Works and Utilities was said by sacked Water and Sewerage Corporation (WSC) engineer Mario Bastian to have conspired with former Corporation chairman Don Demeritte to call off the bidding process for a reverse osmosis plant to start negotiations with BK Water Limited/Veolia, whose principal was Jerome Fitzgerald, now a PLP senator.
The deal, according to the testimony given before the Industrial Tribunal, was allegedly discussed before Mr Bastian's termination from the corporation in September, 2006. In his testimony, Mr Bastian claimed it would have cost Bahamians millions of dollars more to have gone with BK Water. However, the plan did not go ahead as the PLP government was voted out of office the following May, the tribunal was told.
Mr Roberts was unwilling to devote any time to the claims when asked by The Tribune yesterday, angrily shrugging off all allegations as false and of little cause for concern.
"It is utter BS," Mr Roberts said.
And when asked to comment in further detail, he added: "I was emphatic with you, that is utter BS!
"I never met the young man in my life, I never dealt with individuals at the corporation, the board of directors was it.
"There is nothing for me to defend myself about.
"This is like water off a duck's back for Bradley Roberts."
Mr Demeritte declined the opportunity to speak publicly on the matter as he is due to appear as a witness at the tribunal.
However the tribunal, presided over by Harrison Lockhart which met on Monday, has now been postponed indefinitely owing to the ill health of an attorney, a court official told The Tribune yesterday.
Mr Bastian claims he was wrongfully dismissed from WSC, and victimised because he refused to engage in unprofessional and unscrupulous management practices. He also alleges breach of contract and damage to his reputation.
However, Corporation officials maintain they terminated Mr Bastian's contract as he was simultaneously serving as a director of CBA Engineering Ltd, a company in direct competition with WSC.
Mr Bastian denied the conflict of interest allegation, but raised further allegations about a WSC conspiracy to waste millions of dollars paid by hardworking Bahamian taxpayers by engaging in an economically nonsensical contract with BK Water/Veolia.
He told the hearing on Monday how WSC general manager Abraham Butler gave a directive to end the bidding process and engage in negotiations with BK Water/Veolia.
Negotiations began but were stopped when the government changed in May 2007.
WSC counsel Thomas Evans, QC, said Mr Bastian was accusing Mr Roberts, Mr Demeritte, and other WSC senior officials of, "a dastardly conspiracy to rob Bahamian people of millions of dollars."
However, Mr Bastian alleged that WSC chairman Demeritte manipulated the corporation and intimidated him into providing information about Mr Butler that could lead to his dismissal as the chairman inferred that he (Bastian) would be sacked if he did not comply, and promoted if he did.
Mr Demeritte and Mr Butler reached an irreconcilable position when the general manager criticised the chairman's "unauthorised" promotion of minor staff to lucrative positions in February 2006.
The promotions soon prompted industrial action when employees learned 56 staff had been promoted twice within 12 months, while 45 were twice overlooked.
And as fights erupted between Mr Butler, Mr Demeritte and union members, Mr Butler was removed from the corporation under the PLP.
Mr Bastian wants the tribunal to decide if the corporation was justified in terminating his contract.
May 05, 2010
tribune242
By MEGAN REYNOLDS
Tribune Staff Reporter
mreynolds@tribunemedia.net:
PLP chairman Bradley Roberts has denied claims he conspired with the former Water and Sewerage Corporation chairman to offer a lucrative contract to a PLP member as alleged during testimony in an industrial tribunal.
The former Minister of Works and Utilities was said by sacked Water and Sewerage Corporation (WSC) engineer Mario Bastian to have conspired with former Corporation chairman Don Demeritte to call off the bidding process for a reverse osmosis plant to start negotiations with BK Water Limited/Veolia, whose principal was Jerome Fitzgerald, now a PLP senator.
The deal, according to the testimony given before the Industrial Tribunal, was allegedly discussed before Mr Bastian's termination from the corporation in September, 2006. In his testimony, Mr Bastian claimed it would have cost Bahamians millions of dollars more to have gone with BK Water. However, the plan did not go ahead as the PLP government was voted out of office the following May, the tribunal was told.
Mr Roberts was unwilling to devote any time to the claims when asked by The Tribune yesterday, angrily shrugging off all allegations as false and of little cause for concern.
"It is utter BS," Mr Roberts said.
And when asked to comment in further detail, he added: "I was emphatic with you, that is utter BS!
"I never met the young man in my life, I never dealt with individuals at the corporation, the board of directors was it.
"There is nothing for me to defend myself about.
"This is like water off a duck's back for Bradley Roberts."
Mr Demeritte declined the opportunity to speak publicly on the matter as he is due to appear as a witness at the tribunal.
However the tribunal, presided over by Harrison Lockhart which met on Monday, has now been postponed indefinitely owing to the ill health of an attorney, a court official told The Tribune yesterday.
Mr Bastian claims he was wrongfully dismissed from WSC, and victimised because he refused to engage in unprofessional and unscrupulous management practices. He also alleges breach of contract and damage to his reputation.
However, Corporation officials maintain they terminated Mr Bastian's contract as he was simultaneously serving as a director of CBA Engineering Ltd, a company in direct competition with WSC.
Mr Bastian denied the conflict of interest allegation, but raised further allegations about a WSC conspiracy to waste millions of dollars paid by hardworking Bahamian taxpayers by engaging in an economically nonsensical contract with BK Water/Veolia.
He told the hearing on Monday how WSC general manager Abraham Butler gave a directive to end the bidding process and engage in negotiations with BK Water/Veolia.
Negotiations began but were stopped when the government changed in May 2007.
WSC counsel Thomas Evans, QC, said Mr Bastian was accusing Mr Roberts, Mr Demeritte, and other WSC senior officials of, "a dastardly conspiracy to rob Bahamian people of millions of dollars."
However, Mr Bastian alleged that WSC chairman Demeritte manipulated the corporation and intimidated him into providing information about Mr Butler that could lead to his dismissal as the chairman inferred that he (Bastian) would be sacked if he did not comply, and promoted if he did.
Mr Demeritte and Mr Butler reached an irreconcilable position when the general manager criticised the chairman's "unauthorised" promotion of minor staff to lucrative positions in February 2006.
The promotions soon prompted industrial action when employees learned 56 staff had been promoted twice within 12 months, while 45 were twice overlooked.
And as fights erupted between Mr Butler, Mr Demeritte and union members, Mr Butler was removed from the corporation under the PLP.
Mr Bastian wants the tribunal to decide if the corporation was justified in terminating his contract.
May 05, 2010
tribune242
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Time to rethink oil drilling in The Bahamas
Time to rethink oil drilling in Bahamas
tribune242 editorial:
WORLD WAR I was supposed to have been the "war to end all wars," until 21 years later the mistakes made around the negotiating table of that war spawned World War II. Since then the world has been involved in many skirmishes of varying proportions.
A few minutes past midnight on March 24, 1989 the oil tanker Exxon Valdez struck a reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil over 470 miles, leaving behind an environmental nightmare that the world had never seen before -- and hoped it would never see again. The initial cleanup took three years and cost more than $2.1 billion. The deadly toll on wildlife will never be known.
As a result of the Valdez accident an unsuspecting public would no longer believe a corporation's word that its operations are completely safe.
The Alaskan disaster resulted in tighter environmental regulations being imposed on various industries. "The most important regulation attempting to protect against a repeat of the spill," said one report after the accident, "is the modern standard for tanker ships, which now must be built with double hulls, so that if the outer skin is punctured, no oil will leak."
Ostensibly the Valdez was an oil spill -- like World War I -- that was to end all oil spills of such magnitude. But then there was April 22 -- just 11 days ago -- when BP's oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, spewing out an estimated 200,000 gallons of oil a day, with still no sign of letting up. Eleven persons were killed. Ironically, the chaos erupted as the world celebrated Earth Day.
According to reports BP hopes to deploy a giant, 40-foot steel funnel within the next few days to attempt to trap much of the leaking oil at source. However, while the technique has worked in shallow water, it has never been done under a mile of ocean.
It is forecast that this spill will be far worse than the Exxon Valdez tragedy and will threaten even more extensive areas, killing wildlife, destroying beaches, and annihilating the livelihood of hundreds of fishermen, and allied businesses. Bahamians are holding their collective breath that the wind currents don't shift, sending the oil splashing on our shores.
Although, now is not the time for fingerpointing as every resource is being used to stop the flow and spread of the life threatening oil, shortly after the explosion it was suggested that BP's oil rig did not have what is known as a blow-out preventer. It was claimed that cost was a consideration. However, as the news continued to flow as fast as the oil, it was reported that although BP had the preventer, the equipment had malfunctioned.
Apparently, blow out preventers, which would have capped the spill, are mandatory in Norwegian and Brazilian offshore oil drills, but not in oil drills off the United States. It was claimed that regulation of these drills are not sufficiently strict.
This was a spill that after the Valdez was not meant to have happened. But it did.
In May last year it was predicted -- almost jubilantly -- that the Bahamas could be an oil producing company within 10 years. As far back as we can remember oil companies have been poking around in our waters prospecting for oil. So far nothing has been found. In view of what is now happening in the Gulf, it is probably a blessing, and could be a warning that fate should not be tempted.
In March, when asked about the two companies that have raised £2.4 million to increase working capital to invest in deep water drilling in the Bahamas, Phenton Neymour, minister of state for the environment, said the government was "proceeding cautiously."
In view of what is happening in the Gulf, we suggest that government turn its back on oil and think in terms of more environmentally sustainable methods to provide our needs.
Remember there has never -- and will never be a war -- to end all wars, unless it is the final war. Nor will there be an oil drilling accident that will end all such accidents. But if we don't take heed and realise that no matter what proud Man believes, it is Nature that has the last word, an oil drilling accident in these waters could be the final curtain on a Bahamas that we once knew.
It is true, that an oil find in our waters would mean tremendous wealth, but it could also mean tremendous tragedy.
And as we should all know by now, money is not everything -- as a matter of fact one wise man warned that it is "the root of all evil."
May 04, 2010
tribune242
tribune242 editorial:
WORLD WAR I was supposed to have been the "war to end all wars," until 21 years later the mistakes made around the negotiating table of that war spawned World War II. Since then the world has been involved in many skirmishes of varying proportions.
A few minutes past midnight on March 24, 1989 the oil tanker Exxon Valdez struck a reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil over 470 miles, leaving behind an environmental nightmare that the world had never seen before -- and hoped it would never see again. The initial cleanup took three years and cost more than $2.1 billion. The deadly toll on wildlife will never be known.
As a result of the Valdez accident an unsuspecting public would no longer believe a corporation's word that its operations are completely safe.
The Alaskan disaster resulted in tighter environmental regulations being imposed on various industries. "The most important regulation attempting to protect against a repeat of the spill," said one report after the accident, "is the modern standard for tanker ships, which now must be built with double hulls, so that if the outer skin is punctured, no oil will leak."
Ostensibly the Valdez was an oil spill -- like World War I -- that was to end all oil spills of such magnitude. But then there was April 22 -- just 11 days ago -- when BP's oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, spewing out an estimated 200,000 gallons of oil a day, with still no sign of letting up. Eleven persons were killed. Ironically, the chaos erupted as the world celebrated Earth Day.
According to reports BP hopes to deploy a giant, 40-foot steel funnel within the next few days to attempt to trap much of the leaking oil at source. However, while the technique has worked in shallow water, it has never been done under a mile of ocean.
It is forecast that this spill will be far worse than the Exxon Valdez tragedy and will threaten even more extensive areas, killing wildlife, destroying beaches, and annihilating the livelihood of hundreds of fishermen, and allied businesses. Bahamians are holding their collective breath that the wind currents don't shift, sending the oil splashing on our shores.
Although, now is not the time for fingerpointing as every resource is being used to stop the flow and spread of the life threatening oil, shortly after the explosion it was suggested that BP's oil rig did not have what is known as a blow-out preventer. It was claimed that cost was a consideration. However, as the news continued to flow as fast as the oil, it was reported that although BP had the preventer, the equipment had malfunctioned.
Apparently, blow out preventers, which would have capped the spill, are mandatory in Norwegian and Brazilian offshore oil drills, but not in oil drills off the United States. It was claimed that regulation of these drills are not sufficiently strict.
This was a spill that after the Valdez was not meant to have happened. But it did.
In May last year it was predicted -- almost jubilantly -- that the Bahamas could be an oil producing company within 10 years. As far back as we can remember oil companies have been poking around in our waters prospecting for oil. So far nothing has been found. In view of what is now happening in the Gulf, it is probably a blessing, and could be a warning that fate should not be tempted.
In March, when asked about the two companies that have raised £2.4 million to increase working capital to invest in deep water drilling in the Bahamas, Phenton Neymour, minister of state for the environment, said the government was "proceeding cautiously."
In view of what is happening in the Gulf, we suggest that government turn its back on oil and think in terms of more environmentally sustainable methods to provide our needs.
Remember there has never -- and will never be a war -- to end all wars, unless it is the final war. Nor will there be an oil drilling accident that will end all such accidents. But if we don't take heed and realise that no matter what proud Man believes, it is Nature that has the last word, an oil drilling accident in these waters could be the final curtain on a Bahamas that we once knew.
It is true, that an oil find in our waters would mean tremendous wealth, but it could also mean tremendous tragedy.
And as we should all know by now, money is not everything -- as a matter of fact one wise man warned that it is "the root of all evil."
May 04, 2010
tribune242
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Conspiracy claims against Bradley Roberts and Don Demeritte
Conspiracy claims against Roberts
By CANDIA DAMES ~ Guardian News Editor ~ candia@nasguard.com:
A former senior engineer at the Water and Sewerage Corporation, who was fired in 2006 for alleged conflict of interest, claimed yesterday that then PLP Minister Bradley Roberts and then Chairman Don Demeritte led a conspiracy that would have bilked Bahamians of millions of dollars.
Mario Bastian, who testified in the Industrial Tribunal, claimed that Roberts and Demeritte instructed the corporation's general manager at the time to annul the bidding process for a reverse osmosis plant at Arawak Cay, and ordered that the corporation negotiate with BK Water Limited/Veolia. BK Water's principal was Jerome Fitzgerald, now a PLP senator.
Bastian was testifying under oath before Industrial Tribunal President Harrison Lockhart.
He suggested that going with BK Water would have cost taxpayers many millions of unnecessary dollars.
Under cross-examination by the corporation's attorney, Thomas Evans QC, Bastian admitted that he had personally had no conversation with then Minister Roberts regarding the bidding process. Roberts had responsibility for the corporation.
Bastian was fired on September 4, 2006, nearly 20 years after he was hired, but he alleges he was victimized.
The corporation fired Bastian saying it had a lack of trust and confidence in him, according to the evidence. The allegation was that Bastian was an officer of a company that was in direct competition with the corporation, thus giving rise to a conflict of interest situation.
The engineer — who is represented by attorney Pericles Maillis — is claiming breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, and damage to his reputation among other things.
Bastian contends in his originating application that he was victimized by the corporation because he refused to engage in unprofessional and unscrupulous management practices.
He told the Tribunal that he received intimidating phone calls from W&SC Chairman Demeritte. The engineer claimed that at one point Demeritte called him at home and pressed him for information that could help the corporation get rid of General Manager Abraham Butler. Bastian said Demeritte told him that he had the power to promote him (Bastian) but he had to be a team player.
He also said he took the chairman's statements to mean, "If you don't work with me the highway would be your route, and so said so done."
Bastian said, "I felt intimidated in doing my job.
"If in the course of performing your job you made recommendations that were contrary to what persons in certain quarters of the corporation wanted... there was a distinct possibility that there will be repercussions."'
He claimed he told the chairman that he believed in getting promotions based on merit.
Evans submitted that there was no intimidation.
Asked by Evans why he never complained about the alleged actions of the chairman, Bastian said allegations had been made against the chairman in the past, but to no avail.
Questioned repeatedly yesterday by Evans, Bastian denied that he was involved in a conflict of interest. The engineer was a director in CBA Engineering Limited. Bastian told the Tribunal he resigned as a director after the corporation made the conflict of interest allegation.
"I elected to resign from the company (CBA). I did what any good citizen would have done under the circumstances," Bastian said. "I did nothing wrong and yet still I was penalized."
The engineer said he was angered by the allegations that had been lodged against his professional character.
He said, "Once the bullet is out the gun it's very difficult to control the damage."
But Evans suggested that the reason Bastian resigned from CBA is that he wanted to distance himself from a clear conflict of interest.
Bastian however, insisted that the corporation was unable to show any clear conflict of interest.
Evans said that Bastian was accusing the then minister, chairman and other senior officials at the corporation of "a dastardly conspiracy to rob Bahamian people of millions of dollars."
Asked to explain why he accused Roberts of conspiracy, Bastian said the instruction that came through the general manager was that the minister and chairman had given a directive to end the bidding process and engage in negotiations with BK Water/Veolia.
"This was not a standard process," he told the Tribunal.
Asked if he had relied on a hearsay statement from the general manager, Bastian repeated that he had received instructions from the GM and negotiations commenced with BK Water/Veolia.
He claimed that the chairman and other management personnel "manipulated" the corporation.
During his testimony, Bastian said BK Water never got a contract. He told the Tribunal it was because there was a change in government.
Evans said parts of Bastian's testimony were irrelevant.
What the Tribunal has to decide, he pointed out, is whether the corporation was justified in terminating Bastian.
Bastian told the Tribunal that there were clear instances of conflict of interest situations in the corporation, but he was the one singled out and his matter was not even a conflict of interest.
But Evans said whether or not other people who were guilty of conflict of interest were dealt with has no bearing on Bastian's matter before the Tribunal.
Maillis, however, insisted that Bastian was marked and that was part of the victimization.
Evans said he had a problem with Bastian going on a witch-hunt about others allegedly in conflict of interest situations.
President Lockhart then noted that there is a line of authority in industrial law that seems to suggest that the singling out of an individual who may be a part of a group of individuals seems to be unfair.
Pointing to what he suggested was a conflict of interest, Bastian said Simmons Manufacturing (which manufactures shoes) supplies boots to the corporation. The owner's wife is a manager at the corporation, he pointed out.
Evans submitted that the corporation had a relationship with Simmons Manufacturing long before Daphne Simmons was hired, but Bastian insisted this was not the case.
Bastian also claimed that he was blacklisted by the corporation after he was fired, in that the state-owned entity refused to add him to its list of approved engineers. He said he suffered severe mental and economic stress. Bastian told the Tribunal that he is currently unemployed.
Roberts and Demeritte do not have legal representation at the Tribunal. With Bastian repeatedly raising very serious allegations against them, it is unclear whether they will seek representation to defend themselves.
thenassauguardian
By CANDIA DAMES ~ Guardian News Editor ~ candia@nasguard.com:
A former senior engineer at the Water and Sewerage Corporation, who was fired in 2006 for alleged conflict of interest, claimed yesterday that then PLP Minister Bradley Roberts and then Chairman Don Demeritte led a conspiracy that would have bilked Bahamians of millions of dollars.
Mario Bastian, who testified in the Industrial Tribunal, claimed that Roberts and Demeritte instructed the corporation's general manager at the time to annul the bidding process for a reverse osmosis plant at Arawak Cay, and ordered that the corporation negotiate with BK Water Limited/Veolia. BK Water's principal was Jerome Fitzgerald, now a PLP senator.
Bastian was testifying under oath before Industrial Tribunal President Harrison Lockhart.
He suggested that going with BK Water would have cost taxpayers many millions of unnecessary dollars.
Under cross-examination by the corporation's attorney, Thomas Evans QC, Bastian admitted that he had personally had no conversation with then Minister Roberts regarding the bidding process. Roberts had responsibility for the corporation.
Bastian was fired on September 4, 2006, nearly 20 years after he was hired, but he alleges he was victimized.
The corporation fired Bastian saying it had a lack of trust and confidence in him, according to the evidence. The allegation was that Bastian was an officer of a company that was in direct competition with the corporation, thus giving rise to a conflict of interest situation.
The engineer — who is represented by attorney Pericles Maillis — is claiming breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, and damage to his reputation among other things.
Bastian contends in his originating application that he was victimized by the corporation because he refused to engage in unprofessional and unscrupulous management practices.
He told the Tribunal that he received intimidating phone calls from W&SC Chairman Demeritte. The engineer claimed that at one point Demeritte called him at home and pressed him for information that could help the corporation get rid of General Manager Abraham Butler. Bastian said Demeritte told him that he had the power to promote him (Bastian) but he had to be a team player.
He also said he took the chairman's statements to mean, "If you don't work with me the highway would be your route, and so said so done."
Bastian said, "I felt intimidated in doing my job.
"If in the course of performing your job you made recommendations that were contrary to what persons in certain quarters of the corporation wanted... there was a distinct possibility that there will be repercussions."'
He claimed he told the chairman that he believed in getting promotions based on merit.
Evans submitted that there was no intimidation.
Asked by Evans why he never complained about the alleged actions of the chairman, Bastian said allegations had been made against the chairman in the past, but to no avail.
Questioned repeatedly yesterday by Evans, Bastian denied that he was involved in a conflict of interest. The engineer was a director in CBA Engineering Limited. Bastian told the Tribunal he resigned as a director after the corporation made the conflict of interest allegation.
"I elected to resign from the company (CBA). I did what any good citizen would have done under the circumstances," Bastian said. "I did nothing wrong and yet still I was penalized."
The engineer said he was angered by the allegations that had been lodged against his professional character.
He said, "Once the bullet is out the gun it's very difficult to control the damage."
But Evans suggested that the reason Bastian resigned from CBA is that he wanted to distance himself from a clear conflict of interest.
Bastian however, insisted that the corporation was unable to show any clear conflict of interest.
Evans said that Bastian was accusing the then minister, chairman and other senior officials at the corporation of "a dastardly conspiracy to rob Bahamian people of millions of dollars."
Asked to explain why he accused Roberts of conspiracy, Bastian said the instruction that came through the general manager was that the minister and chairman had given a directive to end the bidding process and engage in negotiations with BK Water/Veolia.
"This was not a standard process," he told the Tribunal.
Asked if he had relied on a hearsay statement from the general manager, Bastian repeated that he had received instructions from the GM and negotiations commenced with BK Water/Veolia.
He claimed that the chairman and other management personnel "manipulated" the corporation.
During his testimony, Bastian said BK Water never got a contract. He told the Tribunal it was because there was a change in government.
Evans said parts of Bastian's testimony were irrelevant.
What the Tribunal has to decide, he pointed out, is whether the corporation was justified in terminating Bastian.
Bastian told the Tribunal that there were clear instances of conflict of interest situations in the corporation, but he was the one singled out and his matter was not even a conflict of interest.
But Evans said whether or not other people who were guilty of conflict of interest were dealt with has no bearing on Bastian's matter before the Tribunal.
Maillis, however, insisted that Bastian was marked and that was part of the victimization.
Evans said he had a problem with Bastian going on a witch-hunt about others allegedly in conflict of interest situations.
President Lockhart then noted that there is a line of authority in industrial law that seems to suggest that the singling out of an individual who may be a part of a group of individuals seems to be unfair.
Pointing to what he suggested was a conflict of interest, Bastian said Simmons Manufacturing (which manufactures shoes) supplies boots to the corporation. The owner's wife is a manager at the corporation, he pointed out.
Evans submitted that the corporation had a relationship with Simmons Manufacturing long before Daphne Simmons was hired, but Bastian insisted this was not the case.
Bastian also claimed that he was blacklisted by the corporation after he was fired, in that the state-owned entity refused to add him to its list of approved engineers. He said he suffered severe mental and economic stress. Bastian told the Tribunal that he is currently unemployed.
Roberts and Demeritte do not have legal representation at the Tribunal. With Bastian repeatedly raising very serious allegations against them, it is unclear whether they will seek representation to defend themselves.
thenassauguardian
Monday, May 3, 2010
Senior Justice Jon Isaacs addresses controversial bail issue
Judge addresses controversial bail issue
By KRYSTEL ROLLE ~ Guardian Staff Reporter ~ krystel@nasguard.com:
While acknowledging that every person accused of committing a crime is entitled to apply for bail, Senior Justice Jon Isaacs said Saturday he would have no difficulty denying it to a person accused of a serious crime if the case is tried within a reasonable period of time.
Isaacs was reacting to the government's declaration in the Speech from the Throne that it will bring an amendment to Parliament which would further restrict the right to bail for people charged with serious crimes, and to limit the circumstances under which bail may be granted.
"The only difficulty I would have is if persons are left to languish in prison for inordinate periods of time," said Isaacs, who was speaking during a panel discussion on 'Crime and its effects on our community', which was held on the greens of Super Value food store in Winton Estates. The panel discussion, which was attended by scores of Bahamians, was a part of the police and the Eastern Community Association's Fun Fantastic Festival.
"If persons are brought to trial within a reasonable period of time I have no difficulty with them remaining until such time as they face their accusers," Isaacs said.
Isaacs told The Nassau Guardian following the panel discussion that in most cases accused criminals are left in prison for long periods of time before their cases come to trial.
"That's where I have a problem," he said.
Asked what he considers a reasonable time for a case to come before the Supreme Court, Isaacs said every case has to be evaluated individually based on the evidence.
Thomas Evans, QC, who was also a member of the panel, said he considers two or three years to be a reasonable amount of time.
"But the reality on the ground is that you're [not] getting a case through the system until about five or six years," Evans said.
During the panel discussion, Isaacs recalled one case where four individuals were on bail for 16 years before their case went to trial.
"Imagine if you will if those persons were not allowed on bail for 16 years," he said. "Imagine their sense of grievance. What would the community offer by way of compensation? There is no redress for a person who has to spend time at Her Majesty's Prison awaiting trial."
Acknowledging that crime is spiraling out of control, Isaacs said he understands the society's call for harsher measures.
"There are those who advocate no bail for those accused of crime and harsher punishment for those convicted of offenses," Isaacs said. "While there may be some efficacy in the effort to deter persons from committing certain offenses by the imposition of stiff penalties, when one seeks to deprive those alleged to have committed offenses of their liberty without the benefit of a trial one has overstepped the permissible bounds of response to crime unless one is willing to ensure such persons receive trials within a reasonable time."
The government noted in the Speech from the Throne that a number of people who commit crimes do so while on bail pending trial for other offenses. That fact has led many Bahamians, over the past several months, to advocate for the complete restriction of bail for those accused of serious offenses.
Isaacs added that the court cannot pay attention to the whims and fancies of the community.
He pointed out that it would be hard for the government to undo what has already been done.
"What happens when you create a precedence - you cannot re-shut the door. Once that floodgate is open, the water is going to go through. Having allowed bail for one you must then consider bail for all," he said.
Isaacs added that it is not an easy decision to grant bail for people accused of serious crimes. Isaacs noted that when considering bail, judges have to consider the circumstances surrounding the incident, the offense, and the prosecution's reasons why a judge should oppose bail.
He said the main reasons why bail is denied is if the accused is considered a flight risk, or if there is reason to believe that the accused will re-offend while on bail.
"But if no such evidence is produced to the court at the time when bail is being considered then there is no real reason to keep the person in custody," Isaacs said.
Evans had similar sentiments.
"I would suggest that [the accused] ought not to be given bail if there is evidence to suggest that he is likely to commit offenses while he is on bail because what that does is jeopardize the right to secure people in society and the protection of the law and the security of the [alleged victim]."
Evans compared the job of passing judgment on an accused criminal before the court convicts him or her to walking "a very tight rope".
"It's very difficult to do," he said. "I know a little about that. It's a very difficult job. The bottom line is this, the society cannot be left out in the equation. What we have in our country now is a situation where we're almost overrun by criminal activity. The numbers are startling — 28 murders in the first four months of the year. It's astounding."
He pointed out that the prosecutor would have to prove why bail should be restricted for an individual accused of a crime.
"So once the prosecutors do their job in that respect then perhaps the courts will be persuaded to say, 'look given the facts that I have before me, given the circumstances of this particular case, I have to deny this man bail because otherwise there is a likelihood that the protection of the law and the security of the society is going to be compromised by his release'. But you can't expect the judge to do that if you can't prove it before him. We don't run kangaroo courts around here."
May 3, 2010
thenassauguardian
By KRYSTEL ROLLE ~ Guardian Staff Reporter ~ krystel@nasguard.com:
While acknowledging that every person accused of committing a crime is entitled to apply for bail, Senior Justice Jon Isaacs said Saturday he would have no difficulty denying it to a person accused of a serious crime if the case is tried within a reasonable period of time.
Isaacs was reacting to the government's declaration in the Speech from the Throne that it will bring an amendment to Parliament which would further restrict the right to bail for people charged with serious crimes, and to limit the circumstances under which bail may be granted.
"The only difficulty I would have is if persons are left to languish in prison for inordinate periods of time," said Isaacs, who was speaking during a panel discussion on 'Crime and its effects on our community', which was held on the greens of Super Value food store in Winton Estates. The panel discussion, which was attended by scores of Bahamians, was a part of the police and the Eastern Community Association's Fun Fantastic Festival.
"If persons are brought to trial within a reasonable period of time I have no difficulty with them remaining until such time as they face their accusers," Isaacs said.
Isaacs told The Nassau Guardian following the panel discussion that in most cases accused criminals are left in prison for long periods of time before their cases come to trial.
"That's where I have a problem," he said.
Asked what he considers a reasonable time for a case to come before the Supreme Court, Isaacs said every case has to be evaluated individually based on the evidence.
Thomas Evans, QC, who was also a member of the panel, said he considers two or three years to be a reasonable amount of time.
"But the reality on the ground is that you're [not] getting a case through the system until about five or six years," Evans said.
During the panel discussion, Isaacs recalled one case where four individuals were on bail for 16 years before their case went to trial.
"Imagine if you will if those persons were not allowed on bail for 16 years," he said. "Imagine their sense of grievance. What would the community offer by way of compensation? There is no redress for a person who has to spend time at Her Majesty's Prison awaiting trial."
Acknowledging that crime is spiraling out of control, Isaacs said he understands the society's call for harsher measures.
"There are those who advocate no bail for those accused of crime and harsher punishment for those convicted of offenses," Isaacs said. "While there may be some efficacy in the effort to deter persons from committing certain offenses by the imposition of stiff penalties, when one seeks to deprive those alleged to have committed offenses of their liberty without the benefit of a trial one has overstepped the permissible bounds of response to crime unless one is willing to ensure such persons receive trials within a reasonable time."
The government noted in the Speech from the Throne that a number of people who commit crimes do so while on bail pending trial for other offenses. That fact has led many Bahamians, over the past several months, to advocate for the complete restriction of bail for those accused of serious offenses.
Isaacs added that the court cannot pay attention to the whims and fancies of the community.
He pointed out that it would be hard for the government to undo what has already been done.
"What happens when you create a precedence - you cannot re-shut the door. Once that floodgate is open, the water is going to go through. Having allowed bail for one you must then consider bail for all," he said.
Isaacs added that it is not an easy decision to grant bail for people accused of serious crimes. Isaacs noted that when considering bail, judges have to consider the circumstances surrounding the incident, the offense, and the prosecution's reasons why a judge should oppose bail.
He said the main reasons why bail is denied is if the accused is considered a flight risk, or if there is reason to believe that the accused will re-offend while on bail.
"But if no such evidence is produced to the court at the time when bail is being considered then there is no real reason to keep the person in custody," Isaacs said.
Evans had similar sentiments.
"I would suggest that [the accused] ought not to be given bail if there is evidence to suggest that he is likely to commit offenses while he is on bail because what that does is jeopardize the right to secure people in society and the protection of the law and the security of the [alleged victim]."
Evans compared the job of passing judgment on an accused criminal before the court convicts him or her to walking "a very tight rope".
"It's very difficult to do," he said. "I know a little about that. It's a very difficult job. The bottom line is this, the society cannot be left out in the equation. What we have in our country now is a situation where we're almost overrun by criminal activity. The numbers are startling — 28 murders in the first four months of the year. It's astounding."
He pointed out that the prosecutor would have to prove why bail should be restricted for an individual accused of a crime.
"So once the prosecutors do their job in that respect then perhaps the courts will be persuaded to say, 'look given the facts that I have before me, given the circumstances of this particular case, I have to deny this man bail because otherwise there is a likelihood that the protection of the law and the security of the society is going to be compromised by his release'. But you can't expect the judge to do that if you can't prove it before him. We don't run kangaroo courts around here."
May 3, 2010
thenassauguardian
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)