January 7, 2002

ALVIN Williams's Commentary (Mid-Ocean News, January 3) regarding his perception of the politicisation of the Auditor General's office, fails to discuss the crucial and potentially criminal issue that most concerns the Auditor. That is, at best the unwillingness of the Smith Government to document major taxpayer expenditures, or at worst the theft of $700,000 of taxpayer funds.

The only politicisation that I have witnessed has been via the in-your-face racial attacks by Bermuda Industrial Union president and MP Derrick Burgess and Works Minister Alex Scott, rather than substantive responses to the Auditor's questions. Both of these elected officials are desperate to annihilate the reputation of a public servant in a futile effort to unapologetically bury an egregious example of Government corruption. The Auditor, to his credit, has held his ground and followed the sole path he has available when public officials refuse to comply with their obligations for accountability with public funds: he referred the issue to the Governor. Contrary to Mr. Williams's assertion, this is not politically compromising, it is simply following protocol and a Constitutionally-mandated reporting relationship.

Mr. Williams struggles to obscure the Smith Government's role in the Berkeley fiasco by citing examples of pre-Progressive Labour Party cost overruns and delays. While this did occur infrequently under previous administrations, this isn't the issue that the Auditor referred to the Governor and is not the central concern of most Bermudians.

While the Berkeley cost overruns and delays are of concern, the continuing furor is driven by the refusal of the Works Minister to furnish a receipt for a $700,000 transaction, if it indeed occurred, before he reimbursed the sum from taxpayer funds. I get a receipt, and the retailer retains one in the cash register, when I buy a $1 drink from the corner store!

Any rational person would conclude that the Government wouldn't have allowed this saga to escalate to current levels if there was, indeed, an innocent answer to the Auditor's questions. Proactive would be told to produce a cancelled cheque, or anything to make the controversy go away. They haven't. The Smith Government obviously feels that allowing this to fester and tarnish the Cabinet, the civil service and the country is preferable to the alternative: answering the question honestly.

Mr. Williams accuses the United Bermuda Party of being successful at political sabotage - but this is an argument that, while it may be convenient for him, is beside the point. The UBP is not in charge of the Government. The UBP did not create these situations of scandal, mismanagement and potential corruption at the Bermuda Housing Corporation and Berkeley. The Smith Government is totally responsible.

The UBP, in its role as Opposition, has a duty to voice concerns coming from the community, who are worried about the direction in which the country is being taken by the Smith Government. Giving voice to their concerns is an important part of our political system, and has nothing to do with political sabotage.

What Mr. Williams chooses to ignore is that while the United Bermuda Party were surely unhappy with some of the Auditor General's reports during their tenure, they never refused to furnish documents and allow the Auditor access ... the Auditor said as much in his press conferences. Why not? The simple truth is that they had nothing to hide.

This issue does not concern, as Mr. Williams argues, a "perceived reluctance of the (Smith) Government to be completely open with information" or a "perceived secretiveness". The refusal to present a receipt for a $700,000 payment and proof of the bond's issuance can't be dismissed as simply part of the PLP's eccentric reluctance to be open with the community. Refusal is unethical, it is incompetent and it is a potentially criminal act. In any other democracy, Minister Scott, for one, would have had to tender his resignation long ago.

Mr. Williams recalls that the United Bermuda Party turned a deaf ear to pleas for a more timely release of public accounts reports. I trust that Mr. Williams, an ardent trade unionist, will take space in his next column to support the Auditor in his pleas for the Bermuda Industrial Union to release their financial statements since 1999, as required by law. This will help clear the Union of allegations that it set up a bogus insurance company, and will put at ease any concerns Union members may have that $6,800,000 of the hard-earned assets of primarily working class black Bermudians (the Union Building for example) will be called in under a policy that they might, or might not, have issued. We still don't know.

Mr. Williams comments that the Auditor has a "growing estrangement from the PLP". The Auditor shouldn't have a close relationship with members of either political party. The Constitution allows and requires him to work in a uniquely independent way; that's why the Governor is his boss instead of a Cabinet Minister. While the Auditor should be able to work with all parties and civil servants, he has, by his own admission, never encountered resistance like that he is experiencing now in all his 24 years of service. You can't pin that one on the United Bermuda Party.

Finally, the assertion that the PLP "took power in a potentially hostile environment" is bizarre. The PLP entered office with a goodwill previously unseen in Bermuda and have themselves created a hostile environment in the civil service ... just look at all the resignations there have been.

In the American system, appointed officials resign with a change in administration because they were appointed by that administration.

There is no parallel with the civil service or the Auditor General's position in Bermuda. He is appointed independently, by the Governor, who is himself free of any political ties in Bermuda. I'm not worried about the politicisation of the Auditor's office, because it hasn't happened.

Mr. Dennis and the United Bermuda Party are behaving exactly as intended under the Constitution.

The PLP are not.I'm worried that taxpayer funds have been stolen and people are being asked to turn a blind eye out of political and racial loyalty.

CHRISTIAN DUNLEAVY

Warwick

January 3, 2003

GIVEN his longstanding political beliefs, I'm not entirely surprised that Alvin Williams engaged in some knight-errantry today on behalf of a damsel in distress in the unlovely form of the scandal-plagued Progressive Labour Party Goverment (Mid-Ocean News, January 3). However, I was extremely surprised that he sacrificed his equally longstanding reputation for fairness and objectivity in the process.

His Commentary was as long on propagandistic wind as it was short on facts. To suggest, as Mr. Williams did, that the Auditor General has compromised his integrity and "politicised" his office by carrying out his lawful duties is clearly a case of the writer's subjective political faith colliding head-on with objective reality. The result is predictably messy.

How can Mr. Williams possibly justify selecting his own shallow (and largely wrongheaded) understanding of the Auditor General's role overseeing the island's public finances as "news story of the year" when the multi-million dollar Bermuda Housing Corporation meltdown and the financial shennanigans at the Berkeley Institute project necessitated the Auditor General's interventions in the first place? What about the corruption in high places? What about the possible criminality of those elected and appointed officials who have at the very least violated public trusts? What about Scotland Yard Fraud Squad officers flying to the island to investigate this creative bookkeeping, a move absolutely unprecedented in Bermuda's public affairs? Surely in terms of newsworthiness any of these stories would top the Auditor General going about his day-to-day duties.I'm afraid the only type of rationalisation Mr. Williams could offer in defence of his selective political morality when it comes to the PLP's dubious financial record would be as toturous as it would be unconvincing. Sorry, Mr. Williams. I generally respect your Commentary even when I disagree with it. But on this issue you're the one who has compromised your integrity. Time to sheathe your sword, Sir Alvin. The distressed damsel you are trying to rescue is the architect of her own misfortune.

NUMBER CRUNCHER

Smith's Parish