“LONG ROPE FOR MAWGA GOAT!”

Let me take this opportunity at the outset to commend and congratulate the students, teachers, education managers and parents of the Albena Lake-Hodge Comprehensive School for the exceptional results in the recent CXC and CAPE examinations. In this challenging period it is good to know that there is cadre of young people being “well-equipped” to secure our progress as a nation. And let me send a message to the author of the Social Security Report read by the Chief Minister in the House of Assembly: One can never spend enough money on training ones people!

At the last House of Assembly, the Elected Member for Island Harbour, the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool asked a question to the Leader of Government business and the Minister responsible for Social Security as follows: “How much of the Social Security Funds have Government borrowed since coming into office and for what purpose?”

Under the Legislative Assembly Procedures Part 1 Section 5 it states: “A question may be asked in the Assembly with the idea of obtaining information on matters relating to the affairs of a Government Department or some matter of public concern. It has the effect of bringing the matter into public focus and thus checking wrongs or irregularities which may arise from governmental action.” Obviously the Elected Member for Island Harbour was within his right to ask such a question.

Replies to questions are also dealt with in the Statutory Rules and Orders of the Anguilla (Constitution) Order, section 23(2) as follows: “A reply shall be confined to the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as will render the reply intelligible; and with the consent of the Assembly be taken as read.” In this connection the response given by the Leader of Government business should have simply been to state the amount and the purpose for which the funds were borrowed. But he went on to talk about the past Government leaving the Treasury literally empty; about the former Government wanting to provide benefits for NBA to the detriment of the Treasury and the people of Anguilla; and that the former Chief Minister was the Chairman of the Board of CCB --- while such comments do not fit the rules of procedure it is expected he would play a bit of politics.

It would have been consistent with the spirit and intent of questions in the rules of procedure if the CM had given the various amounts borrowed from Social Security which based on his figures comes to a total of 49.5 million dollars; stated why these monies were borrowed, and; then based on the many statements he has made over the years about the dangers of milking the Social Security Fund, use the opportunity to explain his plan for ensuring that the funds are replaced. For example, I was hoping to hear him say that he would use the Policy Based Loan from the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) to pay back Social Security immediately and protect the fund for its contributors and beneficiaries. Instead he went into his normal attack mode to basically blame the whole thing on the past Government.

Unlike his earlier reply, the Chief Minister’s answer to the second question was in keeping with the rules of procedure. The question was: “What future projects have the Government of Anguilla approved for which they are contemplating the use of Social Security Funds and what are the estimated costs.” The Chief Minister’s reply on this occasion was “rule-perfect” and I quote: “The Government of Anguilla has not approved any projects for which they are contemplating the use of Social Security funds.”

But while the Chief Minister was “rule-perfect” many persons would have heard the several statements by the Chairman of the Social Security Board about office buildings and other commercial developments and as a consequence of that could consider the reply to be less than accurate. In fact it was concerns about such proposals that prompted the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool to ask the question in the first place. The precise nature of that reply goes to show that the government is deliberate in its use of the rules to achieve its well-planned objectives. What followed next is a testimony to that fact.

It must have been a surprise to many that the Elected Member for West End, a Minister in the Government would rise to ask a question of his own Chief Minister. But again this is allowable under the legislative assembly procedures Part I section 6 which states: “Every member has the right to ask a question”. The question was stated as follows: “Can you inform this Honourable House of the State of Affairs at Social Security?” The Speaker of the House allowed this question in her full authority under section 25 of the rules of procedure which states: “The Speaker shall be the sole judge of the propriety or admissibility of a question and may disallow any question which in his/her opinion is an abuse of the right to ask questions.”

But despite the foregoing, the Speaker in carrying out her function of allowing or disallowing questions is governed by section 22 of the rules of procedures which clearly describes eight forms of questions that may not be asked and that must be disallowed. And which by extension should also govern the kind of replies that should be given. So that although a question is worded in a particular way to cause it to be allowed --- the Speaker in his/her management of the House should ensure that the reply does not compromise any of these restricted forms.

I hope that in the development of this presentation you have noted that I have highlighted the following facts:

• The Elected Member for Island Harbour asked proper questions in keeping with the rules of procedure.

• The Leader of Government business is well acquainted with the proper format for a reply when it suits his purposes --- as demonstrated by his response to the second question.

• The Elected Member for West End, though a Member of Executive Council has the right to ask a question of his own Chief Minister.

• The Speaker of the House has strict guidelines governing the form of questions to be allowed in the House.

• The Speaker of the House has the authority to manage any reply --- the substance of which when presented would have the tendency to compromise the intention and purpose for restrictions on the forms of questions.

As a Member of the House of Assembly for almost thirty years I cannot recall any Speaker of the House allowing the abuse of the privilege of asking questions in the manner in which it was done on Wednesday August 11th 2010. The Chief Minister from the outset launched into a vicious attack on past Boards, Chairpersons, The Director, staff, consultants, service providers, the Anguilla Community Foundation, NBA, CCB, NCDS, the Anguilla Music Teachers Association, the Anguillian Newspaper, the Tranquillity Jazz Festival, Senior Officials in the Ministry of Finance and quite naturally his favorite “whipping boy” the former Minister of Finance.

In defense of the Chief Minister allow me to suggest, that based on the uneven flow of his presentation one may justly conclude that he was reading it for the first time. It was obvious that there were a number of words and phrases that were not typical of his oratorical style. In my view the content of the reply was for the most part not what you would expect of a politician who presents himself as someone who supports the development of Anguillians and Anguillian entities. It was thirty pages long, disjointed and rife with libelous, abusive, misleading, inaccurate, malicious, cowardly, unkind, uncaring, and downright nasty statements. And again in my irrepressible sense of fairness --- I cannot accept that the Chief Minister or anyone with the slightest strain of Anguillian blood flowing in their veins could have written such a document.

But I do not intend to sully the columns of this paper by responding appropriately to statements made for example:

• Like: “the affairs of the Social Security Board were run as if it was a private corporation owned by the Director”. Because I might be tempted to ask the question and describe who is running it as a private corporation now.

• Like: “it cannot be contested that (the salary exercise by Mr. Marcel Fahie and Mr. Kenn Banks) was a waste of Social Security Funds from the outset”. Because I might be tempted to explain why Anguillian consultants deserve the same respect for their work as “professionals” from other places and climes who would seek to discredit them.

• Like: “Sadly, it cannot be said that those monies expended to provide Social Security Board (SSB) employees with diplomas and degrees in any way benefitted the SSB, its fund or the people of Anguilla whose money it is.” Because I might be tempted ask the question: Who determines how much training Anguillians deserve and who must benefit? Or: Where and how did the author get his/her training and where is he/she now?

• Like: “It is noted that the then Minister of Finance travelled first class on this and other trips paid for by the Social Security Board to China and other exotic destination”. Because I might be tempted to suggest a suitable compartment for the present Minister and his constant traveling advisor when they travel on Social Security Funds.

So let us ignore all of those possible responses and come back to the important point of governance that I wish to make. The questions in the House of Assembly are not intended to either generate or provoke debate. Their purpose is to seek specific information from the Minister on a specific matter. That is the reason why the person asking the question is only allowed to ask one follow-up question. Plain and simply a question is not a motion! It should not be debated!

I do not intend to list the eight forms of questions not allowed to be asked as outlined in section 22 of the rules of procedure --- but I must draw your attention to those three forms that I believe are relevant to the reply made by the Chief Minister as follows:

22. (1) A question shall not contain arguments, inferences, opinions, imputations, epithets, ironical expressions, or hypothetical cases.

22. (3) A question should not be asked for the purpose of obtaining an expression of opinion, the solution of an abstract legal case, or answer to a hypothetical proposition.

22. (7) A question reflecting on the character or conduct of any person whose conduct can only be challenged on a substantive motion, may not be asked.

So as we draw this discourse to its logical conclusion the Speaker of the House in my opinion has allowed a breach of the rules of procedure not necessarily by allowing the question --- but by the latitude that she allowed the Chief Minister to introduce issues which other members were deprived of the privilege of debating. Obviously, the restricted forms of the question must also govern the forms of the answers --- otherwise the intention and purpose of the restriction in the first place would be compromised and effectively breached.

To take it a step further I consider this to be an attempt to muzzle the debate on the serious matter of the present Social Security Board and the many high-handed actions it has been taking in recent times. Ranging from the “planned hostile take-over of ANGLEC, the recent hiring practices and reported incidents of victimization of staff members, to name a few. The question posed by the Elected Member for West End would never have been allowed by any Speaker with a sense of the controversy which that response could evoke and the detriment it could cause to the proper governance of the House. Her most appropriate ruling would have been to suggest that the question be put in the form of a motion. It would then have allowed democracy to prevail in the House of Assembly and destroyed the “un-Anguillian” designs of the author of the document.

I believe that if the Speaker hopes to earn respect she would be well-advised to draw on the expertise of former Speakers of the House who have indicated that they are willing to assist her in her very challenging job. Of course she must first recognize her responsibility to impartiality and good governance. As for the author of this report --- who it is believed triggered this abuse of the privilege of questions in the first place --- my friend Sam Kelly sagaciously declared: “Long rope for mawga goat!”

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
August 24, 2010

“CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS”

Every one can see that the economic situation of the country is bearing down very heavily on the Honorable Chief Minister. It is regrettable that we find ourselves so deep in an economic crisis that the island is actually in a chronic unproductive state. The Chief Minister is a man of great resolve and courage; he is actually trying to put the very best face on a very bad situation. There is really no good news to report but as promised, he would operate a government of transparency; and on a weekly basis endeavors to inform the people of current affairs.

The country began facing this crisis some where at the end of the year 2007-2008 and has been declining ever since. But the crisis this government finds itself in is one of their own making. All of the elements that would indicate a consistent decline in economic growth were evident when new elections were called, still the, them opposition AUM infused the champagne with nothing less than a positive out look, only if we elect an AUM government. That’s exactly what we have since the 16th February 2010. Absolutely nothing has changed; to the contrary our crisis is getting worse. AUM spared no rhetoric laying the entire economic crisis at the feet of the AUF government, but went on to raise the confidence level of the electorate that, an AUM government would immediately reverse the economic decline and make an immediate difference. That state of optimism was brought to bear on the frame work of all elements equated with the failed economy under AUF and criticized all prospects and efforts brought forward in an effort to stabilize the situation. Ironically the most bizarre accusation which actually shocked the entire community into skepticism was that the government of the honorable Osbourne Fleming borrowed money from Dominica to sustain the government, this was the biggest joke of the campaign.

The wounds of a political sword cut deep and jagged, what we have here are lots of uncertainty and a superficial healing. The people are now getting frustrated and government is helpless. A recent report that Vice Roy was sold was a false alarm, but it appears that government just wanted to report something good but didn’t get the story right, very similar to the purchase of Flags by the salamander group and, “we have a solution to fix the economy.” Lessons must be learnt here that must put all future politicians on notice, the public must be dealt with as real people who must be told the truth weather that means a win or a lost at the polls. All of the ideas that were used by AUF government is indeed the very same used by this government to solve the crisis before us. We will never raise your tax nor increase the cost of living, “vote for us.” “It is a shame that we have to borrow money from Dominica” this was all criticism made by AUM during the campaign.

What is very striking is the advice to the Minister of Health on the continued dismantling of things, now reaching the Health Authority. While the Chief Minister is on a campaign to reduce the influence of the civil service, the Health Minister’s decision, with all good intentions to increase his own authority would deliberately make the civil service more influential in health matters. Changing the constitution to improve such anomalies is not the solution in my opinion. The constitution should only be changed to further preserve the rights and privileges of the people, not a minister who thinks he wants more power to victimize. This government is already engaging in some very deliberate practices to silence people who do not agree with them. This is a very dangerous practice of infringement on our democratic rights as a people as is; more over to extend such powers. I have personally spoken to people who are afraid to voice an opinion because of being afraid of being victimized in some form by this government. Such is unheard of in our small society and these territories. This is a matter to be watching very closely and to be documented so that at some point the powers preserved unto Her Majesty in the hands of the Governor must be asked to explain.

By: EJ Harri

"DIFFERENCE OF OPINION OR SIMPLY CONFUSSED"

The Honorable Chief Minister made it clear on several occasions that the people of Anguilla had a lot to gain when the MOA between Cap Jaluca and the government of Anguilla would be renegotiated. It was made a center piece of AUM's objectives and one of several major scandals brought to play in the campaign, inciting distrust of AUF and the administration of the Honorable Osborne Fleming; but much of it was geared against the honorable Minister of Finance Victor Banks obstructing his bid to becoming Chief Minister of Anguilla. In the absence of a clear and concise interpretation of the end results, thanks to the Honorable Victor Bank for his summation. For us, not being acquainted with much of the language in these documents would rather have it explained, than pretend that we understand it well enough.

When I read the Honorable Chief Minister's remarks on this great achievement, it did not sound like a ringing endorsement of a promise fulfilled. From the pictures I saw, it is clear that this was meant to be a major show piece for the government. All executive functions came to a grinding halt and all ministers strike a pose for the occasion. According to remarks, significant losses were made, details of which were debated in the House. Difference of opinion, or simply bamboozled? (Puzzled) To say the least, the background of these investors could be Harvard educated, besides, with all the vague threats made since the campaign, they probably came well lawyer up, compared to our "Poodle Power." Characterization from various entities involved goes like this; The Chief Minister said, he did what he thought was right for Cap Juluca, the employees and the Government. The CEO of Cap Jaluca said "give us a real commitment and leave us alone, we can sort out own affairs." The opposition expressed how we lost so much, and Victor Bank said that cockroach entered the fowl nest.

As we observe this government, there is a pattern emerging; The Honorable Chief Minister and AUM want to undo all that had been done by the former government and set the country back ten years. From the remarks of the Honorable Member from East End Mr. Roberts who prefers to exclude the government and the people of Anguilla from investing in Cap Jaluca because of an "elite few" tells us a lot. A whaling cry against nationalism and a stinging revenge against those who have multiplied their talent and for those who have stored theirs in barns and the cockroach ate them. When the country was on the move, many took the opportunities and invested in the pride of the country, that's how we own our national banks, major Insurance companies, our electric company and much more. Anguilla is considered a model for the region, and there is constant talk how the people of Anguilla own most of their country's major assets. It appears that the targets are institutions owned by Anguillians and those where Anguillians have vested interest. The local banks, being threatened with their shares in Anglec, a major local insurance company being deprive of coverage of Social Security. Everyone knows how The Social Security's Office was taken over; the Festival's office locked down in darkness, an aggressive attempt to take over Anglec and the Health Authority listed. There is no outcry from the people of Anguilla for this strategic dismantling of the country, no one is claiming mismanagement or malfunctioning of these institutions. I am one that believed that the country was on the right track, and the enormous growth in the past ten years demanded a better structured country to meet international requirements. Building a country is not about AUM or AUF asserting their model. Building a country is about putting up, not tear down, and Government must have a plan of its own.

A very good project this government should be undertaking is to give the people of Island and East End a consistent supply of water! Many days we wake up with absolutely no water in the lines. Let's improve the state of our International airport; in a recent rating of regional airports Anguilla came in last, in fact was not listed among fifty five airports. Another place where government can assert leadership is by managing the Ferry Service. There is mounting criticism of the quality and disparity of the service. I had concerns personally expressed to me with one group, some bragged about the comfort of their trip, other asked why are some of the vessels still in such a service? And others complain of the choppy ride from the airport. We are now actually a clear dependency of St. Maarten/St. Martin for our survival. The island is clearly receding in some instances back to pre '67 conditions. The areas government is concentrating on are in no way obstructing growth.

We all can remember when we had an electric company that was consistently in trouble and the people were not served. Today this service is quite remarkable and mostly trouble free. If government feels that there is an elite group who has gained under AUF, then it is your opportunity to broaden the base to include those who missed out, not to take it all away. It is a begrudging attitude that tells us; since we can't have a bite of the cake, throw it to the dogs. This is not the kind of attitude we need from our government. Many, now older, chose to invest the earnings of their youth, and don't want a government to tell them they can't do that! Or make it appear that all of their endeavors are corrupt.

By: EJ Harri

“Cockroach Got No Call In Fowl Nest”

Congratulations are in order to the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers and the Elected Representative for Island Harbour, the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool for their powerful presentations in the House of Assembly particularly during the debate on the Cap Juluca, Memorandum of Understanding. They were articulate and passionate in putting the issues that concerned them and which should concern all of us very clearly in perspective.

And while I must applaud the Government for bringing the MOU to the House so speedily --- the Members of the Opposition also deserve praise for their willingness to cooperate by debating a document that they had seen less than two days before. Despite that disadvantage the Opposition clearly demonstrated that they had a better grasp of the content of the MOU than many of the Members of the House on the Government side.

The Chief Minister admitted, seemingly with pride, that he had delegated the negotiations of the MOU to the most junior members of his Government. And it was apparent from his comments during the debates that at best he barely skimmed through the document. In fact there is a widely held view that he did not read the document at all.

This latter view point grew in credibility as the debate progressed because the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to be the only one prepared to respond to questions from the Opposition and on many occasions could not even find the section of the MOU required to make his point. On at least one occasion he never found the section --- obviously because it was not there in the first instance.

It was instructive to witness, live on camera, the Parliamentary Secretary fabricating and subsequently believing his own lies. He did this on the sensitive issue of service charge. Kindly follow the steps:

1. Firstly, he suggests that the past Government was not looking out for the interests of the workers so it did not include any mention of service charge in the MOA.

2. His face then lights up because he believes he is on to a good thing and so he then develops that suggestion even further by saying that not only did the past Government neglect to mention service charge in the MOA but it was in fact their intention to abolish service charge all together.

3. He then gets all excited with this fabrication and carries on about how “poor” workers were disadvantaged and how he is able to empathize with them because he worked for sixteen years in the hotel industry where service charge is so vital to their survival.

4. He now thinks he is on a roll and reveals that the past Government had a plan that if they had won the election they would do away with service charge for the workers at Cap Juluca completely.

5. He has now fully convinced himself that it is a fact that the past Government planned to do away with service charge --- so now he moves in for the kill. He declares in triumph: “The AUM Government stepped in just in time and saved the day for the “poor” workers at Cap Juluca!”

I have taken the time to go through the foregoing because it is characteristic of the way both the Parliamentary Secretary and his father, the Chief Minister continue to extrapolate from fiction to “fact” in an effort to create positive images about themselves. And they become more convincing as they go along because it appears that they end up believing their own fabrications. As I observed the Parliamentary Secretary as he went through that metamorphosis --- it was obvious that when he started out he had no idea where it would end up. He simply wanted to make the point that his Government had included mention of service charge in the MOU because they had the interests of the workers at heart. However, he became more animated as this latest masterpiece of deception evolved.

Shakespeare wrote: “there is no art to find the mind’s construction in the face” but it was obvious from the facial expressions of the Elected Member for East End that he was drinking in everything this father and son team put together. I almost fell off my chair when I heard him say and I quote: “this MOU is a living document”. No doubt he was fully brainwashed into believing the spurious definition concocted by the Chief Minister to give the impression that there is a substantive difference between an MOA and an MOU.

It is time for credible members of the legal community to explain that both documents are legally binding in the same way --- and whether we use the term understanding or agreement the document will govern the relationship between the Government of Anguilla and the Developer for the entire period of the lease. But even if the MOU were not “legally binding” what value would that hold for the Government of Anguilla or the Developer if they were signatories to a document which carried no weight. It is ridiculous for the Chief Minister to pride himself on signing a document that does not protect and preserve the rights and interests of Anguillians who he claims to love so much.

But it is the hypocrisy of the entire episode that deserves comment. Here we have a Government claiming on the basis of this new MOU that it has saved the workers and stakeholders in Cap Juluca. First of all Cap Juluca was already saved and doing well from the time the past Government was able to negotiate a feasible agreement with the owners which took into account the unique and historic circumstances of the property, the interest of workers and other stakeholders. In fact, in the letter to the Chief Minister from the CEO of Cap Juluca on July 31st, 2010 states: “Cap Juluca is not asking for anything new. We merely need an unequivocal commitment to the MOA from your government either as originally agreed in 2009, or with the changes we agreed in June 2010, to be able to raise the capital we need to pay our employees and to pay our bills”. Simply put: give us what we agreed to and leave us alone to sort out our affairs!

But as usual the Chief Minister and some of his colleagues continued posturing until they forced the CEO of Cap Juluca to send them an ultimatum that they were helpless to confront. And what does the Chief Minister do? He delegates two inexperienced members of his Government to negotiate with this seasoned developer on an MOA that he claimed during his campaign was the worst document ever negotiated by a Government. One can only surmise that again as usual he was protecting himself so as not to take blame if they came up with a bad document. And true to form he tried to escape some of the blame in the end.

These naïve negotiators boasted about their achievements in the MOU. I will list the main ones they highlighted and comment on them briefly on as follows:

• They added the words “and employee service charge” to the sentences ending “accommodation tax”. While this may have psychological or cosmetic value --- service charge is already enshrined in the Fair Labour Standards Act under section 27. It has never been mentioned in any MOA or MOU including the one the Chief Minister signed with Cuisinart. In fact, mentioning it specifically could convey the implication that where it is not mentioned in other MOA/MOU’s it does not apply.

• They added a section that requires the developer to pay interest of 7.5% per annum on tax payments that are more than 30 days overdue. The fact is that the Financial Administration and Audit Act provides for any one owing moneys to the Government of Anguilla to pay an interest of 12% per annum from the date when it becomes due and payable. In effect, the inexperienced negotiators have reduced the amount of interest payable by Cap Juluca by more than one-third. This means that they have made Government worse off than the law provides in the case of interest on overdue accounts.

• They replaced the wording in the sections of the MOU dealing with duty concessions to reflect the same provisions in other MOA’s as they apply to both local and foreign developers. But while the wording is changed the effect remains the same as in the 2009 MOA.

• They mentioned that the developer is now taking responsibility for roads and the development and financing of the National Park. These are all one-time expenditures. Furthermore, in the case of the National Park as I will discuss later we have lost so much more including the protection of our heritage.

These are not exhaustive but they show how inexperienced negotiators can destroy their advantage. In this context, I must of necessity touch on the two areas where they failed miserably to protect the interest of the people of Anguilla.

The “tender foot” negotiators in their “self-proclaimed wisdom” saw it fit to remove wholesale the entire section on Government participation in the Project. An option that was valid through to February 28th, 2013. This gave the Government and local private investors the opportunity to acquire up to a 20% ownership interest in Cap Juluca on prearranged terms already enshrined in the 2009 MOA. So in effect all the benefits that would come to the project will be shared with Anguilla and Anguillians, that is, a 20% interest in any benefits that may accrue. Again I almost fell off my chair for a second time when the Elected Member for East End said: “the reason why we took it out was because the Government of Anguilla did not have the money to pay for it any way --- and in any case the benefits would only go to the same elite and select few not the masses of Anguillians”. This statement caused the Parliamentary Secretary to shake his head in an obvious show of approval.

But the “rookie” negotiators took the “boobie prize” with their decision to reduce the National Park from eighty-four acres to five acres. The past Government had secured this as an important contribution to heritage preservation in the western part of the island. That benefit was secured through tough negotiations not only with the owners of Cap Juluca but with the owners of Tenemos as well. Imagine our chagrin when we realized that not only was the National Park reduced to five acres --- but was sandwiched between the Cap Juluca Development pods at the eastern and western parts of the Cove Beach lands.

It was pathetic to see the Parliamentary Secretary, in response to a direct question from the Leader of the Opposition on this issue, pretending to look for the seventy-two acres of pond lands that he claimed was not taken out of Anguillian control, knowing full well that the entire section on Cove Pond lands was removed from the MOA. In the end the Opposition was effective in pressuring the Government to amend that section. However, that amendment still falls short of what could be considered acceptable. Hopefully, further pressure could extract more favourable arrangements.

To be quite frank, comments and discussions on the National Park provisions in the MOU will require a dedicated column. Perhaps several columns! Discussions about the conditional agreement for removal underwater rocks up to 100 feet from the shoreline send out alarms. And even the idea of the National Park being built by the developer, with special considerations for guests of Cap Juluca, demand additional thought. We are extremely fortunate to have a well-meaning developer in this case so that further improvements may still be possible. However, such discussions must involve mutual respect and understanding rather than “bullying”.

I am certain that these issues will continue to be the subject of much conversation on several fora. It is my view that we lost many long-term benefits in these negotiations and that we would have been a superior position if we had at least stuck to the June 2010 agreements. I remain happy about one thing, that is, that the jobs, business opportunities and Government revenues have been maintained despite the recklessness and brinkmanship of the Chief Minister and some of his colleagues. I sincerely hope that the Chief Minister would have learned a useful lesson from this exercise and I am sure he will recall an oft-repeated adage among persons even older than he is. Heck! One of my grandchildren said it to me the other day: “Cockroach got no call in fowl nest!”

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
August 17, 2010

TO THE POINT

The significance of a national debate on important issues are probably minimized and marginalized by what appears to be a lot of talk show rhetoric saturating the airways with pro government, pro AUM commentary. Government must be strictly about governing in the best interest of the people; "all the people" where as, the opposition, their business is strictly about government, and having a careful and watchful eye to where they are taking the country. "To the point!" social groups, organization and associations must contribute favorably to everyone. If you are a political entity, get to the point, and let everyone know what you are really about. No radio station or broad cast unit doing public service should be caught up in clear partisan rhetoric, that is a disservice to the general public who indeed have different political interests and view points. Public service organizations should not be representing any single political ideology, but must be a voice of reason. Popular radio programs choosing to be props for government or simply pro-government ideologues are constantly feeding the airwaves with pure political bias. People listening to a radio program want a fair balanced and objective analogy.

Government is, and must remain the most civil of all institutions, this is why our Constitution has gone to great length to ensure the preservation of rights for the people; Our constitution protects Her Majesty's powers and preserved the rights of the people of Anguilla. This same constitution has severely restricted the extreme powers of the elected government, providing them with sufficient grasp to guarantee optimal governing, but does provide an extension of greater powers through consultative authority to ensure that Her Majesty's powers does not abuse her loyal subjects. (The people of Anguilla)

"To the Point" to incite anger against the Governor, the Acting governor, the permanent secretaries and the senior civil servants because of ideological political difference between AUM and the administrative order of the country is not protecting public order. It is not sufficient to reform the constitution to empower the elected government to over rule the administrative order of the country. Our elected people are not always extraordinarily literary savvy in government's function; we must preserve that greater authority to ensure that the people of Anguilla are served with the highest possible literates. Putting a ship on the rocks simply because one can't read the compass while the crew stands by and watch is not good stewardship. The past ten years government functioned very well under said rules, and presented strong arguments for the necessary changes, at a time when it was most required, the country experienced the most historic expansion of our life time, from a 3 million to "300 million budget. Considering that AUM has argued that such an expansion was extraordinarily irresponsible and promised to do the necessary retrenchment, to a smaller country and smaller budget makes that 5th Ministry redundant under an AUM government, unless there is truth to the speculation that Eddie is not a reliable vote. "To the Point" The Issue of reforming the constitution is an orderly and meticulous undertaking with civil recourse. No one should be sensitizing the public to disorder, believing that a common march or demonstration can accomplish such an objective.

"The Constitution:" Her Majesty reserves to Herself powers, with the advice of Her Privy Council, to make laws for the peace, order and good Government of Anguilla. The executive authority of Anguilla shall be vested in Her Majesty.

There shall be a governor of Anguilla, who shall be appointed by Her Majesty and hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure, for the purpose of administering the government of Anguilla. The governor shall have such powers and duties as are conferred or imposed on him by this constitution or any other law and such other powers as Her Majesty may from time to time be pleased to assign to him.

By:EJ Harri

HUSH YA MOUTH !!!

Let me take this opportunity to commend Anguillians, returning family and friends, other residents and our visitors for making Summer Festival 2010 a success. Despite the many constraints --- for the most part things went well. As is to be expected there were issues of controversy, events that needed improvement and disappointments for some groups and individuals. But as I intimated in my last column, the Summer Festival Committee is a “well-designed” machine ready to be deployed --- once deployed all of us then make the festival a success.

My sincere condolences go out to the family and friends of the late St. Claire Weekes, affectionately known as “Spirit”, whose untimely passing was the fatal casualty indirectly associated with the Summer Festival. May his soul rest in peace!

Congratulations are in order to the winners and sincere appreciation should be extended to the other participants who caused the competitions to be fierce, yet exciting and entertaining. While I do not wish to single out any particular event (and I did not attend all of them) I cannot help but extend kudos to the organizers of the Leeward Islands Calypso Monarch Competition for an exceptional, indeed almost perfect, event.

You may believe it or not! But in the midst of the merriment some individuals obviously sympathetic to the ruling party suggested that I should discontinue my writings after the Summer Festival break. To which I politely responded: “Well if they don’t want me to write, then they should not give me anything to write about! Its that simple!”

But here I am again this week with so much to write about that I might have to do so in parts. I have chosen this week however, to speak briefly on the current issues that have slipped us over the holidays, namely, ANGLEC and Cap Juluca. I believe that each of these issues can take up several articles, but if I do not touch them now they may get lost in the “pile-up”. I should at least bring a few points to your attention and reflection.

What about ANGLEC? The planned hostile takeover of ANGLEC led by the Chairman of Social Security and the Minister of Utilities floundered miserably on Friday, July 30th the day after the opening of the Summer Festival. A number of minority shareholders were unsuccessful in getting a court injunction to prevent the meeting from taking place but received a reprieve when the next day the “co-architects” of the takeover were unable to put together the required votes to achieve their objective. The reason for this was that one of the “co-architects”, the Minister of Utilities, apparently neither sought nor received the required approval from Executive Council to sign letters or cast votes on behalf of the Government of Anguilla. In the face of this, one must question the advice that he may have received from his co-architect who is in fact a lawyer.

The pandemonium which was reported at the shareholders meeting again highlights the lack of regard for good governance and the level of arrogance which characterizes the many actions this administration has taken to date. For example:

• Members of the Government who were not shareholders, notably among them was the Parliamentary Secretary, had to be asked to leave the meeting.

• It is reported that the Minister of Utilities insisted on casting his vote on behalf of the Government without having the requisite authority from Executive Council to do so.

• The Chairman of Social Security for his part went so far as to move a motion on the floor to have the Chairman of ANGLEC removed and it was seconded by his Deputy Chairman, Mr. Alkins Rogers --- but the same ANGLEC Chairman had to point out to him that the by-laws did not allow such a motion to be moved from the floor.

• The Deputy Chairman of Social Security took on a legal role by advising the Chairman of the meeting that he could be sued.

• And it is reported that the local banks that are major shareholders received veiled threats at the meeting regarding Social Security deposits being held in their banks.

For a Government that purports to stands for good governance and for the interests of the ordinary Anguillians their conduct at the meeting showed disdain for all these lofty principles. In fact, one is forced to question their motives in so aggressively seeking to politicize the ANGLEC Board. If the Minister of Utilities is prepared to flout Executive Council authority by voting on behalf of Government without its approval he is either extremely arrogant or is receiving bad advice from his “handlers”. And the question again arises: What is the ultimate objective of all of this?

But having lost the battle at that meeting and having witnessed the desperate tactics being employed one must assume that the battle to takeover ANGLEC is not over. It is in this connection that I must expose what I have heard. I will not take the chance to dismiss it as a mere rumor. I feel duty bound to expose it given the credibility of my sources. It has been reported to me that the Chairman of the Social Security Board has written to the Government offering to buy all of its shares in ANGLEC. Furthermore I have been told that the price offered is less than the original selling price for ANGLEC shares. Again the question arises: What is the ultimate objective of all of this?

I feel secure in the knowledge that based on the current Financial and Accounting Regulations of the Social Security Act such an action may not take place. Those Regulations provide clear guidelines as to the amount of Social Security Funds that can be invested in shares in a single entity of this kind. I also believe that the actuarial review would advise strongly against such an action. However, given the level of arrogance that has been exhibited in recent times we must remain watchful for any attempt to amend the regulations in the future. One gets the distinct impression that Social Security Funds are getting a lot of attention in recent times. The risks are worrisome.

What about Cap Juluca? Many of us have been literally sitting on pins and needles awaiting the outcome of the latest showdown between the principal owner of Cap Juluca and the Chief Minister. It was alarming that the Chief Minister would seek to portray Mr. Aron as a villain whose objective is to destroy Anguilla. Successive Governments have worked along with this property given its value to our tourism industry in particular and our economy as a whole. And in doing so they have always sought to ensure that the interests of the employees were uppermost very often at the expense of Government direct revenues. After all it has been the flagship of our tourist industry.

One would have thought that the posturing of the Chief Minister and his colleagues during the election campaign would have been simply that --- posturing. However, one would also have assumed that after they had taken the time to investigate the circumstances of the project they would have understood that the negotiations with the past government and the agreements arrived at were in the context of the severe challenges the property is facing. Today the situation is even further exacerbated by the latest Appellate Court Settlement that increased anticipated costs on the property by more than one hundred million US Dollars.

There must always be a sense of balance in governance and time and time again this administration has shown its lack of understanding of the appropriate strategies to be employed to achieve its objectives. The tendency to use the “bully pulpit” to impress their supporters that they are serving their interests will ultimately result in this Government destroying the gains that Anguilla has made as a sound jurisdiction for investment. Already, the CEO, Mr. Aron has shown in a letter dated July 31st 2010 to the Chief Minister that his (the CM’s) recent comments has caused Cap Juluca to lose some US$ 6.4 million in available funding.

It would be instructive if everyone were to read a copy of the letter from Mr. Aron to the Chief Minister. Every employee at Cap Juluca has one --- so it is now a public document. As in the past, I will again go on record and say that the principal owner of Cap Juluca, Mr. Aron is one of the most courageous men I have met. In addition, to that courage he has been a man of his word throughout the entire past two and a half years of negotiations. He has delivered on every promise he has made. He took on the challenges of Cap Juluca on faith and has not flinched even in the face of recent setbacks with the Court settlement. In fact, were it not for the uncertainty caused by Government’s posturing, the present challenges would have been dealt with the creativity and innovation that has characterized his approach to finding appropriate solutions.

But I must make the point that after all this “bluster and whoopla” the reality of the situation struck home. Not only did the Chief Minister face strong opposition from the loyal staff at Cap Juluca but came to the rude awakening that the project could collapse and with it quite possibly Anguilla. The problem with the timing of this reversal is that considerable negotiating advantage was lost --- and in an effort to justify the period of posturing I daresay that Anguilla has given some of its long-term benefits.

The Honourable Evans McNiel Rogers, Leader of the Opposition singled out a number of the apparent losses to Anguilla in the new agreement reportedly negotiated without important technical support. Let me quote from the Leader of the Oppositions release:

• The new agreement appears to reduce the size of the National Park from 84 acres comprising 72 acres of pond lands and 12 acres of beachfront land, to 5 acres of beach land only.

• The new agreement does not include a requirement for Cap Juluca to clean up the pond.

• The new agreement includes villas to the eastern end of the Cove beach effectively sandwiching the national park between the present Cap Juluca buildings and the proposed National Park Villas at the eastern end of Cove Bay and allowing Cap Juluca to build on the best part of the beach frontage.

• The new agreement does not include the option for the Government of Anguilla or Anguillian groups to purchase a 20% interest in the project.

These are some of the concessions that this Government has given up in negotiating its revised MOU. The Government would claim that it has been able to extract certain improved benefits --- but in assessing them they exist in words rather than in substance. For instance the agreement is now called an MOU rather than an MOA which is another one of the “smoke and mirrors” illusions used by the Chief Minister. An MOA and an MOU is the same legally binding document --- it is disingenuous to suggest that there is a difference. In plain words a deliberate and shameless attempt to mislead.

I am happy that Cap Juluca has been able to achieve its objectives despite those concessions that I consider not to our advantage. But it only goes to show that in critical negotiations the less said the better. Someone said that the Chief Minister needs to take the admonition in one of the road march chants of Better Band in the Summer Festival Jam and I quote: “Hush Ya Mouth!”

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
August 11th, 2010