There are numerous benefits that can be derived by voting YES in the impending January 28, 2013 referendum

Why vote? Why vote yes?


BY PHILIP C. GALANIS



This year, as we begin to celebrate 40 years of independence, the Christie administration is determined to focus the nation’s attention and get its input on several important matters that have either been present in our lives for the past four decades, or that may become an important part of our future.  In order to accomplish this objective, Mr. Christie has foreshadowed three instances in which his government will invite the populace to express its views on issues of national importance.  The first will be a non-constitutional referendum on regulating and taxing web shop operations and establishing a national lottery on January 28 of this year.

Secondly, a constitutional referendum is foreshadowed sometime before we celebrate our 40th independence anniversary. The government also plans to conduct another non-constitutional referendum on the issue of whether or not to permit oil exploration in our pristine waters sometime thereafter.

This week we would like to Consider This… in the upcoming referendum on January 28, should Bahamians vote and how should they vote?

An historical first

This month’s referendum will be the first time in Bahamian history that a non-constitutional referendum will be held.  We have heard the objections of some who ask: Why do we need a referendum on these matters?  The simple answer is that a referendum is not really required.  However, unlike his predecessor in office, the current prime minister is a consensus builder, a quintessential democrat who believes that such fundamental policies should be informed by public discourse, debate and deliberation, not just the Cabinet or prime ministerial directive.

The religious argument

There are some in our society who have sought to reduce their opposition to the regulation and taxation of web shops and the establishment of a national lottery to Biblical precepts.  However, they are hard-pressed to support their tenuous positions.  There is not a single, direct Biblical text which posits that participation in gaming activities is either sinful or offensive to God.  Not one!  Sure, there are some references that can be “interpreted” as tangentially supportive of such an hypothesis, but as regards a specific divine prohibition, the Scriptures are silent.  The infinitely more learned theological scholars who head the Roman Catholic, Anglican and Methodist congregations in our community have themselves resisted such an untenable translation of the Holy Scriptures.  It would be instructive for the uninformed to read the pastoral letters that were recently issued by the Roman and Anglican prelates on this subject.  So much for a firm basis for a religious argument against the subject of the referendum.

The economic argument

If we accept the assertions of experts in The Bahamas, the gaming industry here is just that – an industry.  The web shops, by their own admission, account for an annual turnover of $300 to $400 million and employ more than 3,000 Bahamians, arguably our third largest industry after tourism and financial services.  This revenue, however, remains outside the real economy because we have chosen, like the proverbial ostrich, to bury our heads in the sand and quietly pretend that it does not exist.  The unfortunate reality is that such denial has the effect of criminalizing the activity of at least 50,000 participants, keeping it in the “underground economy”, unregulated and untaxed.  The same can be said for the operators who have personified an entrepreneurial spirit.

If we conservatively accept that the taxes that we do not collect from this industry represent at least $10 million annually, an extremely conservative estimate by any stretch, then, since our independence 40 years ago, the government has failed to collect a minimum of $400 million in tax revenue during that period from this underground economic powerhouse.  Imagine what could have been accomplished by having that kind of revenue stream in our public coffers over the past four decades.  Imagine what kind of good could be done for our future by introducing that kind of revenue stream now.

This injection of revenue does not include other benefits such as payroll, contributions to National Insurance, telecommunications and electricity income, rental income and stamp taxes from financial and real estate transactions, just to mention a few.

The ethical argument

There are ethical considerations that should be factored into the gaming equation.  The current state of affairs criminalizes persons – both operators and participants – who engage in such gaming activities.  On the one hand, because of the existing legal construct, we have accepted that it is perfectly permissible for Bahamians to participate in lotteries and other gaming activities when we travel abroad.  However, the minute we return to our shores, we are instantaneously morphed into criminals if we wish to engage in the very same activity in which we participated abroad.  This reality represents the highest form of hypocrisy and is symptomatic of a severe case of national schizophrenia.  Such behavior results in a form of national insanity that borders on the idiotic.

Why vote? Why vote yes?

There are numerous benefits that can be derived by voting yes in the impending referendum.

• A yes vote will legally recognize a reality that has been an integral and ingrained part of our community and culture for many decades.

• A yes vote will positively contribute to our national coffers by providing additional revenue that is presently beyond the reach of the government.

• A yes vote will enable us to truly diversify our economy.

• A yes vote will foster a well-regulated industry that will emerge from the shadows into the light.

• A yes vote will open a new industry not only for the present operators, but also for those who qualify for future operations.

• A yes vote will open this industry to also include groups of entrepreneurial Bahamians as well as companies who could finance their gaming enterprises by offering shares to the public, making this industry truly open and owned by the public.

• A yes vote will enable the government to have additional funds to allocate for education, sports, culture and public health initiatives.

• A yes vote will open the possibility of creating a school of entrepreneurship established by these Bahamian entrepreneurs who can also impart their industry experience by mentoring young Bahamians.

• A yes vote will prevent us from having to continue to expend exponentially large funds in policing an illegal and unregulated industry.

• A yes vote will enable us to prevent the possibility of falling into the trap of having our country blacklisted by powerful forces beyond our borders who will surely insist that we are contributing to money laundering and the funding of terrorist activities.

Conclusion

In the upcoming referendum on January 28, it will be important to exercise our right as citizens to be heard when our government asks our opinion.  If we do not use this, our very first opportunity to be heard in this manner, we endanger ever being asked again.  This is an expensive exercise that government will not likely undertake again if the citizens do not respond.  Should the turnout be small, history will see this as a setback to the broader and more inclusive new democracy we are being offered with this referendum.

On referendum day, it will be important for us to vote and to vote yes.

• Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis & Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament.  Please send your comments to:pgalanis@gmail.com

January 07, 2013

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

2013 Gambling Referendum Issues: ... ...since we are dealing with gaming ...the question as to whether Bahamians and permanent residents ought to be allowed to gamble in the casinos of The Bahamas should have been a consideration by way of the impending January 28, 2013 referendum

Democratic National Alliance (DNA) Press Release: Christie Government....A Missed Opportunity

Three weeks before the Referendum on Gaming, the Christie Administration has revealed the questions to be posed on the 28th January 2013. In a National Address to the nation last night, the Honorable Dr. Bernard Nottage said that the two questions are: Do you support the regulation and taxation of web shop gaming and do you support the establishment of a National Lottery?

There are concerns with these questions as presented.

Firstly, are the two questions going to be on the same ballot or will there be two distinct questions? This has to be clarified and we ask the government to clarify their position as soon as possible.

Secondly, in connection with the question…Do you support regulation and taxation of web shop gaming, this question presupposes the legalization of web shops. The question should have been, “Do you support the legalization, regulation and taxation of web shop gaming?” The question for the Christie Government is what about the legalization of web shops and its operations? This concern seems to have been overlooked by the government.

The fact of the matter is that no matter how you vote in connection with this question, there is a predetermined position. If you vote yes…then regulation and taxation would be in place. If you vote no…then web shops and their operations would remain in the same position as they were prior to the referendum. I ask the government to kindly answer this particular concern. What happens to the web shops if there is a no vote for its regulation and taxation?

In addition, what regulations are we, the Bahamian people voting for? This government has not informed the Bahamian people of this information. Do they intend to do so before the referendum? I think it is necessary. Further, how would taxation be effected? We have no answers to this! If it is regulated, are there going to be any sanctions placed on those who were operating unregulated for all these years? What would be the preconditions to those who wish to be regulated?

In connection with the question on the establishment of a National lottery, what has caused the Prime Minister to change his mind on this question? You would indeed remember that during the election campaign the Prime Minister said that they would hold a referendum on whether there ought to be a national lottery. After the election, the Prime Minister said that he consulted with a foreign entity and was advised that a national lottery would not work in the Bahamas. This certainly is indicative that the Prime Minister did not do his research prior to the election and during the campaign said certain things for political expediency! Now the Prime Minister has placed the question of the National Lottery on the ballot. The question we, as Bahamians, would like to know is what changed the Prime Minister’s mind. We have not todate seen the report as mentioned previously, we are not aware of how much we, the Bahamian people, had to pay for the said report and no explanation has been given to the Bahamian people as to why the Prime Minister is now rejecting the conclusion of the report. The Prime Minister was elected by the Bahamian people to act on their behalf and in the best interest of the Bahamian people. We are entitled to know the answers to these questions!

Finally, since we are dealing with gaming, the question as to whether Bahamians and permanent residents ought to be allowed to gamble in the casinos should have been a consideration by way of referendum.

The government has a lot of questions to answer and again has missed a prime opportunity to properly enhance our democracy!


Branville McCartney
DNA Leader

Caribbean Blog International

The January 28, 2013 Gambling Referendum Questions are: ...Do you support the regulation and taxation of Web Shop gaming? and... Do you support the establishment of a National Lottery?

Gambling Referendum Questions Revealed

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE TWO questions for the January 28th gambling referendum that will decide the future of gambling in the Bahamas were revealed last night by National Security Minister Dr Bernard Nottage.

In his national address to the country, Dr Nottage announced the questions in accordance with the order of Governor-General Sir Arthur Foulkes who, yesterday, ordered for a referendum on the issue to be held on January 28.

“As stipulated by that order,” Dr Nottage said, “Bahamians will be presented with two questions.”

“The first question reads as follows; Do you support the regulation and taxation of Web Shop gaming? The second question reads as follows; Do you support the establishment of a National Lottery?”

Voters, he added, in accordance with section 59 of the 2012 Referendum Regulations, must “place one cross only in the space opposite the word ‘yes’ if he supports the question, or in the space opposite the word ‘no’, if he does not support the question.”

“Fellow Bahamians, the procedures to be followed in the conduct of this national Referendum for the most part mirror those that are followed in voting at General Elections for members of the House of Assembly. However, in the case of a Referendum there are no political candidates. Instead, as indicated there are questions to which the voter is to answer either “yes” or “no”. A “Yes” vote means you support the question and “No” vote means you do not.”

“The result of the poll will be determined by a simple majority of the number of “Yes” versus the number of

“No” votes”, the national security minister said.

The Parliamentary Commissioner will hold a briefing session with Local Observers to advise them of their role in the referendum prior to the advanced poll.

Dr Nottage also emphasized that only those who were eligible to vote in last year’s general elections will be allowed to vote in the polls of the gambling referendum.

“Persons who reached the age of eighteen (18) after May 7th and all other eligible Bahamians who have not yet registered may still do so. The voters register will close on the 10th January 2012. Anyone not registered by then will not be eligible to vote.”

In last night’s address, important dates in lead up to January 28’s referendum were also touched on.

The Parliamentary Commissioner will publish notification of the Referendum tomorrow January 4. The Voter Register closes on January 10 and January 19, the Voter Register will be certified by the parliamentary commissioner.

Regarding persons interested in voting but unavailable on the day in question due to being out of the jurisdiction or other reasons, the minister said that an advanced poll will take place on January 21.

“On Monday, 21st January, 2013 an advanced poll, inclusive of overseas voting, will take place. Qualified persons who are desirous of voting in the advance poll either as an overseas voter or a special voter have until Thursday, 10th January, 2013 to submit the relevant completed application form to the Parliamentary Commissioner.”

“For those persons who reside overseas, a completed Form J must be submitted. Special voters, namely election officials, those who on referendum day are likely to be hospitalized, undergoing medical attention, etc., must complete Form K.”

While it was noted that there would be no election agents in the referendum, regulations “empower” the minister to appoint a maximum of three local observers per polling station to ensure fairness of the process “including at least two persons representing the views of those members of the public interested in the “yes” and “no” vote.”

“The appointment of the Local Observers shall be made in writing and signed by the Minister,” he added.

The minister concluded his address by highlighting the importance of the populace voicing their issue and position on the regulation and taxing of Web Shops and the establishment of a National Lottery.

“Let me remind you, that while for the purposes of the efficient management of the Referendum you will be voting within your constituency, the results of the Referendum will be determined by a simple majority of the total number of votes cast nationally for each question.”

“The Government is committed to participatory democracy and believes in the timeless tenet that public policy should consistently reflect the collective will, desires, aspirations and sensibilities of you the Bahamian people. We pledge to be guided by this fundamental ethical and democratic principle through all of our deliberations on your behalf.”

“The Government of The Bahamas encourages all Bahamians to exercise their right, to express their views freely, to conduct themselves peacefully and to be tolerant of the views of others,” he concluded.

January 03, 2013

Tribune 242 

Caribbean Blog International

In waging a $1,500,000.00 (One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars) fight for the YES votes in the impending - January 28, 2013 - gambling referendum... the numbers men are doing more than attempting to legalize their web shop businesses.... ...They are challenging the role of the church in the modern Bahamas

What a ‘Yes’ vote could mean for the church

thenassauguardian editorial

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and Free National Movement (FNM) have historically dared not cross the church for decades on the issue of gambling for Bahamians in The Bahamas. Instead, both parties as governments turned away and did not see the numbers houses.

In recent years, with the rise of Internet technology and steely boldness, the numbers men of old and their new contemporaries came from the shadows and openly set up illegal shops in front of the political parties and police, declaring to Bahamians that they are now forces who will no longer accept being repressed.

The numbers bosses now sponsor charitable events, advertise and one has even donated openly to at least one government agency.

The Bahamas is a very protestant nation with the overwhelming majority of its people identifying themselves as Christians. Churchgoing is high. Consequently, the political parties have not wanted to face­off against a church that, for the most part, has been rabidly against gambling.

Despite this fear by our great political parties, the numbers bosses have now decided that it is time to demonstrate to the church of Christ and its Bahamian leaders that they do not fear them. They have set up a lobby and have let it be known that $1.5 million will be spent in an advertising effort to win the referendum scheduled for Monday, January 28. Via this act, they have declared opposition to the church.

This newspaper also reported yesterday that members of the ‘Vote Yes’ campaign and four pastors who are pushing for the regularization of the numbers business may join forces to push their cause. Members of the ‘Vote Yes’ campaign have also met with Prime Minister Christie to discuss the upcoming gambling referendum.

The Bahamian church is not used to this direct a challenge. It has historically been able to shout down adversaries on the gambling issue. Now, with a referendum having been pledged, the church has an opponent.

The stakes are high for this referendum. In our modern history the church has felt it had the upper hand on issues such as this. A defeat here will lessen the perceived power of the church. It would also demonstrate that well ­funded lobbies on moral issues could win against the church in a public fight.

What would a defeated church do? If it preaches to its members to vote against the legalization of gambling and those members overwhelmingly disobey their pastors, that act of defiance by Bahamians would demonstrate that though many sit in pews on Sundays, they do not listen to the people who speak to them with full regard.

In waging a fight in this referendum the numbers men are doing more than attempting to legalize their businesses. They are challenging the role of the church in the modern Bahamas.

The pastors who like to make statements on this and that moral issue need to know that on the issue of gambling they are in a fight for legitimacy. Certainly, if the church loses it will not be totally illegitimate and irrelevant. It would just fall a notch in influence. And the next time a group thinks about challenging the church, if it loses this referendum fight, that group won’t be as afraid, further expanding secularism in The Bahamas.

January 03, 2013

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

...infractions and environmental issues in shanty towns ...throughout the islands of The Bahamas

Special Project Unit Created to Address Shanty Towns

By Elcott Coleby
Bahamas Information Services




The Minister for The Environment and Housing, the Hon. Kendred Dorsett updated the public today on the policy steps his Ministry is taking to proactively address building code infractions and other environmental issues surrounding the proliferation of shanty towns throughout the country. According to Minister Dorsett, a Special Project Unit (SPU) was created within his ministry to address the housing and environmental health issues associated with shanty towns.

“The Department of Environmental Health Services has created a Special Project Unit headed by Assistant Director, Lennard Miller, to address infractions and environmental issues in shanty towns throughout the islands of The Bahamas. Existing reports on identified shanty towns in Nassau, Abaco, Exuma and Eleuthera are being updated and new reports are being prepared in respect of shanty towns for which the DEHS (Department of Environmental Health Services) has not conducted an investigation” said the Minister.

Minister Dorsett also advised that the DEHS will fully enforce the law where there are instances of infractions under the Environmental Health Services Act. He pointed out that the SPU “will complete its comprehensive report by the end of January, 2013 and the DEHS is also establishing an Enforcement Unit, which will focus on prosecutions of infractions under the Environmental Health Services Act”.

December 28, 2012

Bahamas.gov.bs

Caribbean Blog International

A. Loftus Roker wants his freedom... ...even if he's starving

The road to freedom

BY CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com

Even if he’s starving, A. Loftus Roker wants his freedom.

And so, when he attended the December 1972 Constitutional Conference in London, he was determined to stay into the new year, spending Christmas away from home, if necessary.

He was not returning to Nassau without the very thing the delegation had gone for — independence. Prime Minister Lynden Pindling led government members in that delegation, and Kendal Isaacs led the Opposition.

On December 20, 1972, the delegation signed the independence agreement, and on June 26, 1973, the British Parliament enacted the Bahamas Independence Order.

The official date for independence is July 10, 1973 when the Bahamian flag was raised for the first time. 

Roker was one of the signatories to the Bahamian Constitution.

The 40th anniversary of that signing passed quietly last Thursday. 

There was no recognition from the government or anyone publicly.

Roker sat down with The Nassau Guardian on the anniversary of the signing, and reflected on the kind of country we have 40 years later.

He is but a handful of Bahamian constitutional framers still with us.  Roker pointed out that he sat on every committee established to draft a new constitution ahead of independence.

“The real independence occurred when the British agreed for us to get independence,” he said.

“It felt good to me because I believed in freedom and that is what really distresses me because we don’t preserve our freedom.

“We take it for granted; we allow all sorts of things to happen, and I’m talking about leaders on every level — the politician, the preacher, the parents.  We all seem to take too many things for granted.”

The former immigration and national security minister expressed disappointment over the current state of affairs.

After all, it’s not the kind of Bahamas he and other founding fathers had dreamed of when they attended those talks 40 years ago.

But despite the national challenges — and there are many — Roker has no regrets about independence.

“Nothing will cause me to regret independence, nothing,” said Roker, who at 77 still has a quick step and a sharp mind.

“I say I want independence even if I’m starving.  I don’t believe I should be slave to anybody. So even if I’m starving.”

Sitting in his treasure trove of independence papers; other historic documents – many with Sir Lynden’s signature; old newspapers and cherished photographs – many with colleagues and dear friends who have passed on, Roker acknowledged some of the missteps the government made in the years after independence, but also the achievements.

“The Bahamas isn’t where I expected it to be in ‘72 when we signed the document, but I say the fault is all our fault,” he said.

“If I see wrong going on and I say nothing, I am as much at fault as the fellow who is doing the wrong because if I told him he is wrong, maybe he would stop.”

Pointing to one mistake he said the PLP made, Roker said, “We said to people who voted for us that all the jobs in the banks would be available to you. 

“What we didn’t tell them is that the garbage collection also belongs to you.  And so the people got the view that once the PLP came to power, I don’t have to do any dirty work.  I can get an office job.”

Signing
Speaking of the 1972 Constitutional Conference, Roker recalled that the British adjourned the conference for a couple days.

“In the midst of this, the FNM delegation decided that if they don’t leave now they may not get home for Christmas and they signed a blank piece of paper and left us to discuss important matters like citizenship, immigration and all of that.  They left the PLP alone to discuss that,” Roker said.

“I said no matter if they stay until next year, I wasn’t going to move from here.  I came for independence and that’s what I want.  Not one of them was left.

“I said that on the floor of the House a couple times.  They wouldn’t take me up on it.  They just kept quiet.  Now I have a sneaking suspicion that they may have said to Sir Lynden, ‘We’re going, but we’re with you’.”

The Bahamian delegation did not get all it wanted in those negotiations, but it got enough, he recalled.

“If you lived in that time, you would find that the white Bahamians and foreigners who were businessmen here at that time were saying once we get independence, the PLP will take over the courts and all of that, and there will be no justice and we will confiscate their property and all that kind of thing. That’s why the Privy Council was left there as the final court of appeal.

“We kept it because we wanted to give the assurance that we were not trying to run the judiciary, that you had a final court which we couldn’t control. 

“The same thing with the queen.  They saw [independence] as breaking off all connection with Britain, and we will have our own president and we will be dictators.

“That’s why we left the queen there.” 

With all the deficiencies in the constitution, Roker said he does not think it should be “tampered with”.

“If you think about it, if it is decided that anytime you don’t like anything in the constitution you can change it, the constitution would soon mean nothing at all and the young people would feel, that’s only a piece of paper, which it is.  But if you don’t respect that piece of paper [it means nothing].”

Ahead of the 40th anniversary of independence, Prime Minister Perry Christie has appointed a Constitutional Commission, headed by former Attorney General Sean McWeeney.

The Commission is scheduled to report by the end of March 2013 and the government has foreshadowed a referendum before the July observances.

Among other things, that referendum would seek to eliminate clauses from the constitution that discriminate against Bahamian women.

While Roker said he does not think the constitution should be changed, he added that at this stage in his life, he doubted his opinion on the issue really mattered.

Preparation
For A. Loftus Roker, his role in the march toward freedom developed after a years-long focus on a good education.

Born in Delectable Bay, Acklins, to humble parents who were farmers, Roker said his father, Elkin Roker, who also had a fishing boat, saw the importance of a good education early on.

And so, as long as he was interested in staying in school, he could stay in his father’s house and he could eat.

Because studying was more important than learning to farm, Roker said he never really got into farming until about 10 years ago.

He splits his time between Acklins, his first love, and New Providence, where he bought his first home in his early 30s.

Roker came to Nassau at age 18, and it was then that he realized that he and his family were poor in Acklins.

“When I lived in Acklins I didn’t know I was poor.  I never figured that out until I came to Nassau because my parents always taught us to make do with what we have,” he said.

“…Other people believed that because of the way we lived that we also were well off.  But we had hard times too.

“There was no employment in Acklins then, and there is no employment there now.  The only people who are getting a salary are those who work for the government.”

While working at the Bahamas Telecommunications Department’s transmission station at Perpall Tract, he started thinking about a life in politics. 

At age 23, he went to London.  He spent a year doing GCEs.  Then started studying law.

Roker passed his exams in December 1961 and was called to the bar in May 1962.

At the time, there were just a few black lawyers in The Bahamas.

Speaking of The Bahamas all these years later, Roker lamented the blind loyalty many people have toward political parties.

“For some people, the party is more important than God,” he said.

“It’s either right or wrong and if you check my history, I criticized Sir Lynden, who did more for me than any other politician. 

“I criticized anybody when I thought it was necessary, but whenever it was about him, I never criticized him unless I went to him first, privately, and told him what my problem was. 

“When you heard me criticize him, don’t bother go to him and tell him what Roker said because he knew what Roker was saying.  He knew that long before you.”

Hitting out at blind loyalty, Roker said there are crooked PLPs and crooked FNMs.

“There are crooked Bahamians,” said the former immigration and national security minister.

Gambling
These days, Roker leads a very private and quiet existence.

But back in the late 1960s, he was the first chairman of the Gaming Board.

While initially shying away for any current position on gambling, Roker explained why he thinks legalizing gambling for Bahamians would be a negative move for The Bahamas 40 years after independence.

“Part of our campaign in ‘67 was that we were against casino gambling,” he recalled.

“The problem was though once we came to power…we felt we did not know what effect the closure of the casinos would have on tourism.  We didn’t know how many people were coming here to gamble, therefore increasing the count.” 

And so, the Pindling administration allowed the casinos to remain.

“The churches and all that were against the thing.  What happened is we didn’t want gambling and we decided this is a tourist facility and Bahamians should not [gamble], and I supported that,” he said.

“The thinking was that if a tourist came here and gambled and got broke, he’s got a return ticket, put him on the plane and he goes back home.

“If the Bahamian gambles and he goes broke, he has to stay here.  And so he has to borrow from his friends because with gambling you always believe you are going to win on the next [try].”

Roker said if Bahamians are allowed to gamble in casinos, crime would increase “because you don’t win in [the] casino”. 

“The slot machine is the easiest thing to play,” he said.  “For every dollar you put in that slot machine, somebody will win 15 cents.

“Somebody, not necessarily you.  So you realize how profitable that is for the casino?”

Roker suggested it is laughable that the government is now in talks with numbers bosses about possible legalization of their businesses.

“Something is wrong with us,” he said.

“If the law says that that thing is wrong, why are we sitting down with the fellow discussing with him how we’re going to set this thing up.  I just wonder. 

“If he is doing something that is illegal now and is still illegal today because nothing has changed and you know who he is, and perhaps the police are helping him carry his money to the bank so nobody robs him, it’s unbelievable what we have come to in The Bahamas and I am saying there appears to be no law and order in the country.” 

Roker added, “I wouldn’t agree with it, but if they want it that’s alright with me.  And there are other antisocial things too that go on with gambling in casinos.”

Dec 24, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

...while undeniably entertaining, the public spat between the National Insurance Board (NIB) director Algernon Cargill and the newly appointed chairman Gregory Moss has some actual value beyond its qualities as political soap opera

Nib: The Real Lesson

By PACO NUNEZ

Tribune News Editor

AMID all the sound and fury of the ongoing the National Insurance Board saga, one voice rang true last week – that of former BEC chairman Fred Gottlieb.

He reminded us that while undeniably entertaining, the public spat between NIB director Algernon Cargill and the newly appointed chairman Gregory Moss has some actual value beyond its qualities as political soap opera.

In response to claims by Mr Moss that he ran up more than $240,000 in charges on his corporate credit card over three years, Mr Cargill denies any wrongdoing and points out that a review found the card was not misused.

He in turn, alleges the existence of several unexplained charges on Mr Moss' own NIB card, including some for "large amounts of alcohol and food" at the Hilton Hotel, despite the chairman being provided with a $125 allowance whenever he is in Nassau.

But, asks Mr Gottlieb, regardless of who is telling the truth, why does either man – or any other member of the board of directors for that matter – need a government issued credit card in the first place?

"I served as chairman of several public corporations and, as such, did not approve credit cards being given to any board member (including myself) as I deemed it to be unnecessary and undesirable," he said.

According to the hefty affidavit filed by Mr Cargill last week, the card was approved for use in "business development and conduct of board business; as well as to execute purchases where credit card payment is required; and to mitigate against the inherent risk present when in possession of cash; and for use as and when required as is customary in today's business environment."

But would it not make more sense, in order to avoid allegations of misuse of public funds, both valid and false, that such individuals simply charge work expenses to their own credit cards, with reimbursement coming after proof they were engaged in legitimate company business?

Surely, we aren't expected to believe such luminaries of commerce and industry as Greg Moss and Algernon Cargill can't get a local bank to extend them credit.

How many other public service chairmen, directors, board members are currently packing government-issued plastic? At what rate is this privilege abused with impunity?

"But this is how things are done in the business world nowadays," some who are more accustomed to the corporate culture, may say. Well this isn't the business world, it's the Bahamas – which suffers at the moment from double digit unemployment and severe revenue shortfalls. We are in no position to let public funds slip away unaccounted for.

The credit card issue is, in fact, only one of several "undesirable" tendencies brought to light by the Moss-Cargill blame game.

Take for example, NIB's contract for property insurance with Bahamas First. Mr Cargill's affidavit alleges that during the application process for a replacement firm, Mr Moss ordered him to award the contract to one of the bidders, Star General Insurance, despite the fact that this would have been "improper" because the other contender had yet to issue a proposal.

Mr Cargill claims the Superintendent of Insurance confirmed "management's concerns to be material".

But how can the scenario alleged even enter the realms of possibility? Why is the process for selecting a company for a government contract not enshrined in law?

In the interest of transparency and anti-corruption, why is it not explicitly illegal for any public servant, right up to the prime minister, to arbitrarily choose the beneficiary of such a contract?

There is also the matter of Kenuth's Electric, which it is claimed received around $8 million worth of contracts from NIB.

Mr Cargill denies he is a friend and former colleague of the owner and asserts he was "not involved" in the decision-making process.

But questions of nepotism aside, why, under any circumstances, should it be possible for one company to benefit to such a great extent from a government department, to the virtual exclusion of the rest of the industry?

Mr Cargill's affidavit notes that during the renovation of NIB Headquarters beginning in 2009, the project manager recommended that "due to the specificity of electrical work required, NIB not engage a variety of electricians for various projects so as not to compromise the environment and to be able to determine which company was at fault" should anything go wrong.

All well and good, but in such extraordinary circumstances, the Minister for National Insurance should be required to bring the matter before the Cabinet – or better yet Parliament, so the public can know how its money is being spent.

The construction of the Fresh Creek Clinic furnishes a similar example.

Mr Cargill's affidavit alleges Mr Moss accused the director of intervening in a contract to award it to his cousin.

Saying the discussion to award the contract to HEW Construction came from the quality surveyor, not him, Mr Cargill claims the contractor being replaced was thought to lack the requisite building experience, was said to have asked other contractors to share NIB jobs so he could "receive a portion of the contract proceeds" and had been accused of requesting "kickbacks".

The affidavit also claims Mr Moss ordered that the notice dismissing the first contractor "be rescinded".

The immediate question that springs to mind is, if a contractor is suspected of illegal behaviour while on a government job, why is it not public service policy to report it to the police for investigation?

Such decisions could then be made on the basis of evidence instead of hearsay, and would be much more resistant to outside interference of the kind alleged.

Frequent interference is the essence of Mr Cargill's complaints against his new chairman.

For example, he claims Mr Moss directed him to surrender his full authority, including control of human resources, to newly appointed senior vice president Cecile Bethel.

Mr Cargill notes that "due to the sensitivity of HR matters" it is established corporate practice "to ensure that the executives who have legated authority for HR matters continue to exercise those functions while the CEO is out of office, to avoid anyone seeking to advance separate causes with the temporary authority held."

He asserts that Mr Moss attempted to direct him "in an operational area with respect to the management of NIB, without any support for the National Insurance Act or regulations and with total disregard for my position as director and CEO of the National Insurance Board."

He adds that Mr Moss "sought to control personally the day-to-day operations of NIB."

But, he points out, "My role as director and CEO of NIB, pursuant to Section 40 (1) of the National Insurance Act, provides that I shall be the chief executive officer of the board."

It does indeed, but the Act obviously needs amending so as to be more specific about what this means.

Better yet, the distinct roles of all CEOs and chairmen across the public service should be clearly defined and delineated in law, to avoid any future confusion.

In particular, because they tend to be political appointees, board members and chairmen should be barred from assuming any functional role, confining themselves to oversight and broad policy formation.

This would perhaps bring an end to the "we reach" attitude that seems to crop up on these boards whenever the government changes hands. Mr Cargill goes on to accuse Mr Moss of:

• Ordering that they switch offices and advising a staff member to "contract an interior decorator to ensure the former director's office, now occupied by the chairman, is decorated at a standard befitting of a minister."

• Seeking to have a $42,000 energy study of NIB's properties conducted by a newly formed Grand Bahama company of his choice, when a recent study of the same kind has cost the Board only $3,000.

• Pushing NIB to invest $10 million in a private venture, against the advice of management, by saying Cabinet ministers Ryan Pinder, Khaalis Rolle, Michael Halkitis and Prime Minister Perry Christie himself wanted it approved.

Whether valid or not in the particular case of Mr Moss, do these allegations not epitomise the behaviour of far too many whose positions see them straddle the line between politics and the public service in this country?

"Constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go," Montesquieu wrote.

Whether or not anyone at the top of NIB fits this model is now for a court to decide. But the real lesson of Cargill vs Moss is precisely the existence of a grey area at the top which facilitates favouritism and corruption, and encourages all manner of overreaching and self importance.

If anything productive is to come of this argument, it will be a greater understanding not only that vague laws and lax regulations

have nourished a continuous squabble for power and influence at the top of our public institutions, but also that at the end of the day, the average citizen is the only real victim of this state of a affairs.

On the off chance Prime Minister Christie might be inclined to address the situation in a meaningful way, a fun place to start would be a public review of all cars, drivers, credit cards, expense accounts and other perks and privileges enjoyed by chairmen, directors and general managers in the government's employ.

What do you think?

Email questions or comments to pnunez@tribunemedia.net, or join the conversation at www.tribune242.com/opinion/insight

December 10, 2012

Tribune242 

Caribbean Blog International