Crown Lands

Constitutional Discussions 22: Disposal of Crown Lands. Opportunities for official corruption by local administrators in a colonial setting are limited. The External Auditor reports to the Governor and the House of Assembly on the spending of public funds. He ensures that it is difficult, if not impossible, for senior government figures to dip their fingers into the public purse and remain undiscovered. There is thus an external check on waste of public monies. Not so in the case of public lands. There are no checks and balances when it comes to wheeling and dealing in public lands. This lack has long been a cause of public ferment and distrust in Anguilla. It is a subject on which several representations were forthcoming to the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission during the public discussions leading up to its August 2006 Report.

Section 75 of the Anguilla Constitution presently provides that the Governor is the person who signs legal instruments dealing with Crown land. He is obliged to do so on the advice of the Executive Council, or cabinet. This two-step strategy ensures some degree of control. Most Anguillians believe that is not sufficient. It does not give the Anguillian public the full assurance that it demands. A Governor will not be sufficiently aware of local affairs to be able to question a dealing that is inadvisable but that is being pressed on him by Cabinet. One suggestion for reform found wide acceptance. It was to require all dealings in Crown lands to be the subject of debate in the House of Assembly. This strategy would act as an additional control on wasteful dealing in public land. The fear of public exposure would limit the temptation to deal improperly in public lands. The Commission recommended at paragraph 162 of its Report that section 75 of the Constitution should be amended to provide that all future dealings in public lands in excess of one acre be required to be approved by a Resolution of the Assembly.

It is a matter for regret that both the supporters of Government and of the Opposition meeting in caucus at Limestone Bay Café disagreed with the recommendation of the Commission. They all preferred that the present provision remain as it is.

We are left to wonder why!

Social Insecurity

At Last! The 2003 Accounts.

I recently received a message that the long overdue Social Security Annual Report for the year 2003 has been published. I had a look at the website. The letter of transmittal and other reports are undated. We have to assume that the Minister received the Report when it was published, in August 2007. I would have thought this was a tad in arrears for a Social Security Board?

My correspondent was not impressed. He sent me a query he had received recently. I shall publish his response at a later date. This is what the query he received said:

We finally get to see the Social Security Annual Report for 2003. As expected, it is not very revealing. How much does Tim earn? You tell me:

6. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE	2003 $$	2002 $$
Salaries & Allowances of Admin staff	1,577,200	1,408,037
Allowances & Expenses of the Board	139,257	140,801
Other Expenses of Administration	1,402,705	1,654,122
Other Expenses	89,083	76,110
Total	3,208,245	3,279,070

This trough has room for countless snouts.

They have over $14 million in a Smith Barney account. In 2002 it lost over $3.5 million. Madre de Dios!

They own an unstated number of vehicles, having a total depreciated value of $69,000+ at the beginning of 2003. I don't know what they cost, or how many of them are devoted to Tim's "official" use.

They spend, very roughly, $4 million a year to give out $3 million in benefits. This does not include the Development Fund.

The Development Fund gave a $100,000 grant to the Jazz Festival.

What else do you see here that might interest Don? He has a somewhat limited fascination for financial statements.

Is this what they call a faith based initiative?

Yours faithfully etc,

I know that Director Tim Hodge honestly believes that Social Security is transparent and likety-splick clean. However, the Social Security fund is one of the largest honey pots of potential for misuse on the island. There must be few funds, other than the government’s total income housed in the Consolidated Fund and the entire asset base of one of our major banks, that are larger than the public monies held in trust by the Social Security Board. To this end, the Board must expect that its accounts will be subject to the most stringent examination and analysis. Tim is an old friend of mine. But, old friendships must not be permitted to stand in the way of rigorous examination of the accountability of the Board for the funds upon which future generations of employees must depend. The Social Security Board has no shareholders meeting to face questions. It is all the more incumbent on them to provide us with the fullest details of where our money is invested and what is being done with it.

I have to agree with my correspondent that the explanation of administrative costs published on Social Security's website, no matter how acceptable it is to the accounting profession, should not be acceptable to us here in Anguilla. Later, my correspondent's response to the above letter.

Quarantine

Oriental Fish Imports. A correspondent sent me a Belize article from Caribbean Net News. I read it with interest. I was amazed. I had no idea that any public health authority in the West Indies was so aware of the environmental issue. It was staggering, for someone residing in Anguilla to read about such principled determination.

Their Quarantine and Inspection Service has recently confiscated and destroyed 4,492 pounds of fish originating from Asia. The reason? The fish were inspected! It was noticed that they were not from the USA as stated on the permits presented for importation, but from Asian countries such as China, India and Vietnam. The problem? The fish represented a high risk for the introduction of diseases to the aquaculture sector. These countries are not transparent in their reporting of fish diseases.

It gets better. I learned that the Belize Agricultural Health Authority in 2006 issued 6,257 animal health and food safety permits. All application are screened by a Veterinary and/or Food Safety Officer. A risk analysis is performed for those commodities that represent a high risk due to Belize’s natural conditions. In 2006, six international site visits were conducted to verify inspection, approval and certification procedures. Four documented risk analyses were performed for those commodities that represent a high risk. These included milk powder, duck meat, packaged bees, and pork.

In the same year, 2006, the Quarantine and Inspection Services confiscated over 106,500 pounds of high-risk commodities. They refused entry into Belize of a total of 90,000 pounds of commodities due to high pest infestation.

Can any of us in Anguilla imagine anything like that happening in our Public Health or Fisheries Authorities? I doubt it. If I am wrong, please let me know. And, what was much more extraordinary, the information was published! It was information that the press and public could access. It was not kept from the public. That is quite extraordinary for us in Anguilla. As my correspondent writes,

How mucha high risk or pest-infested commodities were confiscated in Anguilla in 2006? If anything has ever been confiscated here in living memory, it's a State Secret. But we have the Cuban tree frog, the killer tick, the pink mealy bug and a zillion African snails.

Of course, Belize has marine parks. She has fish farms. She has one of the greatest barrier reefs outside of Australia to protect. Her officials have more reason to be interested in the marine environment than our officials. We in Anguilla have nothing worth protecting. Or, so it would seem!!

Assembly

Order in the House of Assembly. A correspondent has recently sent me a post from the St Helena Herald. He has added his comments. I wonder if his comments are relevant to the conduct of business in the Anguilla House of Assembly at this time. There have been times, no doubt, when his comments may accurately describe what happened in Anguilla. But, does it happen still? Make up your own minds. This, in red, is the clipping he sent me, with his comments in green below:

St. Helena Herald
17 August 2007
Honourable Speaker calls Councillors to Order

During formal Legislative Council Meetings, the Honourable Speaker of the St Helena Legislative Council has found it necessary on occasion to remind Honourable Members of the rules of procedure when rising on points of order or information. The current Speaker, The Honourable Eric George MBE found it necessary to do this at the 3^rd Meeting of the 2nd Session of the Legislative Council also.

Someone asked me to explain what was actually happening in the Meeting at the time, which I did. Realising that there may be others who may be unaware of the rules of procedure in Legislative Council,the following information relevant to any member rising during a debate in Legislative Council, is offered for clarification.

The St Helena Legislative Council Guide to Procedure contains a section on Standing Orders made, with the approval of the Governor, in accordance with section 29 of the Constitution:

ORDER 22 – Responsibility for Order

1. The President shall be responsible for the observance of the rules of order in the Council and his decision on any point shall be final.

2. Whenever the President rises during a debate, any member then speaking or offering to speak shall sit down, and the Council is to be silent so that the President may be heard without interruption.

ORDER 23 – Points of order or information

1. Any member deviating from the provisions of these Standing Orders may be immediately called to order by the President or by any member rising to a point of order; a member rising to a appoint of order shall simply direct attention to the point he desires to bring to notice and submit it to the President for decision.

2. When the question of order has been stated, the member who raises it shall resume his seat and no other member, except with the leave of the President, shall rise until the President has decided the question, after which the member who was addressing the Council at the time the question was raised shall be entitled to proceed with his speech giving effect to the ruling from the Chair.

3. Any member may rise at any time to state any fact which is relevant to the matter under debate and of which he believes the member then speaking to be unaware; Provided that a member so rising shall confine himself to stating the fact in question, without argument or opinion; and Provided also that any member who appears to the President to be abusing the procedure provided by this Rule so as unreasonably to interfere with the freedom of speech of another member shall be liable to be dealt with under Order 25, Rule 2.

ORDER 25 – President’s powers to enforce order

2. If a member shows disregard for the authority of the Chair, or abuses the rules of the Council by wilfully and persistently obstructing its business or is grossly disorderly, the President may order that member to withdraw from the Council Chamber for such period as he may determine, and may direct such steps as are necessary to be taken to enforce his order.

Source:

St Helena Legislative Council Guide to Procedure, issued April 1989 by the Secretariat, following the introduction of the St Helena Constitution Order 1988.

I trust the above selected information about rules of procedure in Legislative Council is helpful.

Cyril Gunnell

This is different from Anguilla. In Anguilla, any member is free to interrupt whoever is trying to speak, so that he or she may correct the misinformation being presented. This is called a "Point of Order." Other members may then intercede. Whoever speaks the loudest has the floor. The Speaker yields his authority by banging his gavel repeatedly and making empty threats. When the meeting turns into something resembling a mass cat and dog fight, the radio broadcast is suddenly discontinued without explanation or apology.

In Anguilla, we call this "Setting a good example for our young people." We wonder why they have gone bad.

I have to admit that I do not have a copy of the Rules of Procedure of the House of Assembly of Anguilla with me in London at this time. I seriously doubt if our rule on points of order are as detailed as these. I also doubt that they provide such clear rules on how a Member is to make a “point of order”. I have never heard a Member in Anguilla make a “point of information”. And, I doubt that Speaker David Carty can be described as ineffective.

Does anyone know what the Rules of Procedure say?

Transparency Int

Transparency International. A reader sent me this article from the Guardian Newspaper. It gives us an insight into the sort of good work that Transparency International is doing all around the world:

Anti-corruption survey lists lawyers for first time
Lawyers have a new reputation in Kenya - as solicitors of bribes. The professionals have been listed for the first time ever in the annual Kenya Bribery Index, prepared by the local chapter of the Berlin-based Transparency International. Lawyers were ranked the ninth most corrupt group in Kenya in the report, which was published yesterday. The police remained the most corrupt institution in the country for the sixth year running, according to the survey which involved asking 2,400 respondents what institutions they had interacted with and for details of bribes paid.
Associated Press in Nairobi

The article inspired me to do a Google search for the Kenya Bribery Index. I recommend that you have a look at it. It gives an idea how long the Kenya Branch of Transparency International has been working to encourage their fellow citizens to clean up their act. Perhaps, some enterprising young persons could consider setting up a branch in Anguilla.

I was sorry to see how poorly the judiciary and police of Kenya do in the rankings for 2007. The police in Kenya have traditionally been the worst offenders when it comes to bribes. Lawyers enter the list for the first time. You can download the 2007 report here.

Now, I am well aware that thre is no evidence that we have corrupt police or lawyers in Anguilla. But, it would help to keep us on the straight and narrow if we did have a branch of TI here, wouldn’t it?

Obsession

Why is Don Mitchell Obsessed With Good Governance? I suppose it is guilt. What do I mean? Nothing keeps a man more honest than the fear he will be found out. Confession is good for the soul. With those two maxims, let me examine why I seem to be obsessive about the need to act properly in government. Since I was first appointed to the Public Service Integrity Board three years ago, I consider that I have been involved in a fraud on the public purse. This is my confession. It is nothing new. Deputy Governor Stanley Reid will tell you that I have used the identical words to him on several occasions. So will Governor Alan Huckle, Governor Andrew George, and PS Foster Rogers. Let me explain.

It is a fundamental principle of government that no civil servant may expend public funds on a purpose that has not been approved by the House of Assembly. Every penny spent must come under a “head” in the Estimates that are approved by the Assembly each year in the Budget. No matter how worthy the object, there must be no exceptions. When I served as a Head of Department in the Anguilla public service in the 1970s, we regularly received a circular from Financial Secretary Franklin Connor reminding us that if we misspent one penny, we would be made to pay for the cost out of our own pocket. So, Anguilla is supposed to be subscribing to this principle. But, to my dismay, I have been immersed by the Anguilla authorities in two programmes that offend this principle. It has been done in spite of my protestations, but, still, I have gone along with it.

The first was the appointment to the position of Chair of the Public Service Integrity Board. When I was first appointed at a salary, I asked Governor Allan Huckle how I was going to be paid, since neither the post nor the Board existed in the establishment. The funds to pay for the Board had never been approved by the Assembly. He assured me that it was all right. The members of the Board would be temporarily paid out of “good government funds” that had been provided by the British Government under a Budget approved by the British Parliament. No further approval of the Anguilla Assembly was required. As soon as possible, the expenses of the Board would be incorporated into the Anguilla Budget, and formally approved. The Board carefully approved and presented a Budget. The idea was that it could be included in the annual Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure. Years have passed. The UK government has long ceased to pay for the Board. I understand that the Board and its expenses are now locally funded. No part of the Board’s budget has ever been submitted to the House of Assembly. I have repeatedly asked who pays the expenses of the Board. No satisfactory answer has ever been forthcoming. So far as I am concerned, the Board is part of a gigantic financial fraud on the public revenue. Every time I mention this to the relevant authorities, I am met by a knowing smile and a wink. I am told to keep quiet. Everything has been organized! And, this in relation to Anguilla’s Public Service Integrity Board! I cannot convey to you the sense of outrage that I feel every time I contemplate the irony of it all. It is no exaggeration to say that the situation leaves me with a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach.

Then, in early 2006, I was asked to participate in a Commission to advise on the revision of the Constitution. It was to be called the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission. The positions were to be salaried. There were to be printing and other expenses. I was to be the Chairman. How was it to be funded, I asked. Assurances came down that it would be paid initially from discretionary funds in the office of the Chief Minister. We were asked to prepare a budget so that the costs could be included in the national Budget in due course. With this assurance, the Commission duly prepared a budget. We submitted it to the authorities. It exceeded one hundred thousand dollars, not an insignificant sum. Months passed. The Commission completed its work. A year has now passed. The national budget was approved in December 2006. Not a penny of the Commission’s cost was included in it. No retroactive approval was sought from the Assembly. Worse, the Commission never received any explanation as to how the funding was approved.

The result is that, over the past three years, I have increasingly felt smeared by an unspoken accusation of participation in a series of frauds on the public revenue. I feel great discomfort, verging on paranoia. That, I suspect, is the source of the guilt that causes me to harp on the subject so obsessively.