30 December, 2007

Leadership


Likeability Is not a Necessary Qualification for Leadership. A New Year is about to begin. Anguilla looks forward to progress on constitutional reform. The British Government demands we consider the issues and tell them what we want. Anguillians demand constitutional advance. Government cannot keep putting off taking a decision. Anguilla is already one of the laggards in this Overseas Territory’s endeavour. General elections in Anguilla are only a couple of years away at most. We must have our new Constitution by then. It would be a disaster to put it off until after the elections. The Chief Minister has promised that once the New Year begins we will go back to considering constitutional reform. We have dithered away all of last year. We cannot sensibly continue in this way.

The Chief Minister is in a quandary. He established a committee to advise him and to assist government in negotiating constitutional advance with the British. The committee has presented him with a problem. He cannot get all the members to agree with each other on the way forward. He has two different streams of advice coming out of the committee. They are irreconcilable.

There has been public discussion on the various constitutional issues for the past several years. Some members of the committee contend that a consensus has emerged. They say that that consensus is embodied in the Report of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission delivered to government in August 2006. They believe that this Report contains the true voice of the Anguillians. However, not every Anguillian contributed to the discussions and to the eventual Report. There were some who “boycotted” the process. They form the second group in the Chief Minister’s committee. They argued at the time the Commission did its work to the effect that it was the responsibility of the British under various United Nations resolutions to educate the people of the Overseas Territory on the options open to them for Constitutional advance. This group argued that until the British had discharged this “duty”, Anguillians would be incapable of knowing what they really wanted in terms of Constitutional advance. They insisted that we must first go through a process of being educated by the British before we could sensibly make up our minds. No one would have a problem with the proposition that we should educate ourselves. The problem most of us had was that it was said that it was the responsibility of someone else, the British government, to do the educating for us! This group claims that the Report does not represent the true vision of the Anguillians for Constitutional reform. They insist that any reform process based on the Report is flawed. They demand that the reform process begin all over again. They waited until the process of consultation and drafting of the Report was completed. Then, they put the spanner in the works. They refused to accept the Report as the basis for going forward with reform. They have gone further. They insist that the only way that we will know if Anguillians are in favour of any proposed constitutional advance is if there is a referendum.

The two groups will never agree. They are not capable of coming to a consensus. Someone has to cut the proverbial knot. It will be a demonstration of leadership when those who must lead finish listening to the two contending streams of advice, and then come to a decision on how best to proceed. The decision when taken will not please everyone. Some will be happy with it. There will be others who will be upset. That is one of the responsibilities of leadership!

Should a leader want to be liked? Yes, of course. We all want to be liked. None of us wants to be disliked. But, should a leader abdicate leadership because he is not sure whether what he decides on will be appreciated? Does one show leadership when one puts off taking a decision because one does not have consensus? Does a real leader duck the responsibility of leading the way until he has everyone agreeing on the same direction? Does the helmsman seek consensus and approval from the rowers?

To ask the question is to provide the answer. A good leader will study the issue carefully. The leader will take advice from persons who are pro and from those who are con. A good leader will not demand consensus among his advisers. The real leader asks for a variety of opinions. The real leader does not fail to take a decision because the decision will not be approved by some. That is to abdicate leadership. We know real leadership when we see it. It is shown by the person who goes out in front and says, “Follow me”. It is shown by the person who takes a stand, based on principle, and summonses the followers to the cause.

Who likes it is a question asked by the politician. The statesman does not even consider asking the question.

Or, as my late Dad used to say, “Who vexed, lose!”


29 December, 2007

Christmas


Compliments of the Season.

Here’s hoping we all had a Happy Christmas!

I know we all look forward to a Prosperous, Safe, and Healthy New Year!

21 December, 2007

AARF Critical


Anguilla Animal Rescue Foundation Criticises “Dolphinarium” Blog as Irresponsible. AARF is Anguilla’s premier animal protection society. It looks after any animal in distress. It reports to the authorities on acts of cruelty to animals. It should have a deep and abiding concern for Anguilla’s dolphins. Those whose principal interest lies in little puppies and pussies should not be contending with those more concerned with the plight of our endangered iguana or the holding in a prison in Anguilla of eight dolphins. They have a common cause. They should be natural allies. They should not be attacking each other’s efforts on behalf of dumb and helpless animals. That causes a waste of energy and a loss of focus. So, imagine my concern, if not consternation, when the following press release dated 18 December was given to me today.

It was only on 16 December that this blog broke the story on the deplorable condition in which the dolphins were then held. Photographs taken on 11 December were shown. It was hardly an irresponsible coverage. The evidence was there before all our eyes. Now, officers of AARF have visited the site. It was two days after we reported the story here. They say they found the dolphins “in great shape and extremely well cared for”. They saw what they saw. They wrote what they wrote. They say they “cannot condone irresponsible press releases”. They condemn those “who wish for an animal to suffer and die in order to attract public attention”. This critique must refer to the blog of 16 December. There was no other press release on the subject. Unless it is Nat Hodge’s news article in Thursday’s issue of The Anguillian newspaper. He published some photographs that were not on my blog. I assume he had access to the person who took them and to those who visited the site then. He wrote his own story, and did not quote mine. He wrote, “Though not in colour, these photographs present a gruesome reality of the environment of the captive dolphins”. Enough said about conditions at that date.

Let us leap forward to today 21 December. By coincidence, one of my correspondents visited the site today. My correspondent took more photographs. Let us look at them and determine for ourselves what they show.

This is a shot of the outflow pipe onto the beach. It shows that the pumps are not running today. I accept that they must be capable of running to have been able to top up the tanks that are shown in the photographs of 11 December. It is very costly to run the pumps all the time.

This one shows the algae oozing out of the dolphin tanks. If this is what comes out of the discharge pipe, the water can hardly be described accurately as clear and with the pens clean. One has to ask how the government vet who helped write this press release could have reported to the executive committee of AARF that “he had visited the facility earlier in the month and reported to us at that that time, that the water was seen to be clean, no chemicals were in use, the water circulating system was working . . . This is shown by the photographs taken in early December, and earlier published, not to be true.

This photo shows scum and debris floating on the top of the water today. Did it all grow back since the visit of AARF on 18 December? It is difficult to see how so much algae could have grown in the few days that had passed. Did AARF miss it on their visit?

There were originally eight dolphins on the site. There are only two visible in the tank at this time. At any rate, only two were alive and well enough to swim around and show themselves today when these photographs were being taken. I am told that in the dead of the night last night, a cargo plane flew in to Wallblake Airport and, with the assistance of the local customs and veterinary authorities, four of the dolphins were shipped off the island. We are told they are going temporarily to Tortola. So, there should be four dolphins left in Anguilla. Does anyone know what happened to the apparently missing two?

The water level in the above photograph is higher than the level shown in the photographs in the post of 16 December. The tank has obviously been topped up recently. My correspondent writes me that you have only to look into the water and you can see that while the surface of the water is relatively clear, the muck on the bottom has not been removed. It is as filthy as it was before. My correspondent’s exact words are, “I shot views to show that the water level is back up to par. It appears to me that the tank has been cleaned "cosmetically" around the edges as when I looked hard into the bottom of the tank I could see clumps of algae, etc.” It would appear that after the story broke, the dolphin people hurriedly turned back on the pumps and topped up the tanks. They did a little surface cleaning, no more than that. If the missing two dolphins are still there, it means that the water is too dirty to see them.

Those in Anguilla who do not understand what all this fuss is over “a bunch of fish” must be laughing.

I am ashamed of AARF.

RSPB-BOTs

Commitment No 7: Review the Range, Quality and Availability of Baseline Data for Natural Resources and Biodiversity.

This was the seventh commitment made by the government of Anguilla, like other OT governments which in the year 2001 signed up to an Environmental Charter [link here] .

Dr Mike Pienkowski is the Chairman of the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum. He was engaged as a consultant to examine how we were performing under our Charter. He prepared a Report of August 2007. His Report measures performance by the year 2007 of UKOTs and the UK Government in implementing the 2001 Environment Charters. A copy of his 19-page Report can be read [link here].

According to the Report, Anguilla is doing about average in meeting its obligations in relation to this commitment. There are some taxa and natural resources for which base-line data have been collected and made available. [A taxon (plural taxa), or taxonomic unit, is a name designating an organism or group of organisms. A taxon is assigned a rank and can be placed at a particular level in a systematic hierarchy reflecting evolutionary relationships: [link here]]. Similarly, there are some taxa and natural resources for which there are, apparently, monitoring programmes in Anguilla. In this, we are said to be similar to such territories as Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos. But, we are said to have to do a lot to catch up with Bermuda, Gibraltar and the Isle of Man.

I would really appreciate it if someone in the Environment Department or the Anguilla National Trust could enlighten us as to what exactly it is that we in Anguilla have done to meet this commitment. Does it only mean that we have been counting iguanas? What about the rubbish dumps that are developing on the road to Cap Juluca Hotel? Or, on the dirt road through the Hughes Estate from Anguilla Trading to Long Bay? Do these count, or are they irrelevant to natural resources and biodiversity?

EU-OCT


Relations Between the Overseas Countries and Territories and the European Union. In a recent article published in MercoPress we learn what our leaders were doing, or not doing as the case may be, on our behalf in their recent meetings in London. These meetings were held in the last week in November and the first week in December.

The article concerns the November meetings. The information comes in a release from Mike Summers, one of the representatives of the Falkland Islands. We wish that all our leaders in the OTs were so open. It does not strike any of us in Anguilla as odd that we have to go to a newspaper published in Montevideo, Uruguay, to learn about meetings between the Overseas Territories’ representatives and the representatives of the European Union.

The representatives of the Overseas Territories took the opportunity to meet to discuss the composition of a paper reviewing our relationship with the European Union. This is important because increasingly in the years to come the European Union will pass laws that are going to apply to us in the Overseas Territories. They have already begun to do so in tax and trade matters. We need to have a unified position if we are to be able to defend ourselves from any onslaught on our liberties by the Europeans.

There has not been a word about these meetings in any press release on the website of the Government of Anguilla. Not a word in The Anguillian newspaper. A Government press release on the various social events attended by the Anguilla team while in London suggests that this aspect dominated their time.

One feels justified in concluding that our leaders are convinced that the less we know about Europe’s plans for us, the less trouble we can be to them.

Of course, it could just be that none of our team from Anguilla bothered to attend the November meetings. Maybe, they know nothing about these developments. If this is so, in my view, it will prove to be very unfortunate for us!


19 December, 2007

Legal Aid


The Anguilla Legal Aid Clinic. ALAC is a service offered by the Anguilla Department of Social Development. The Clinic operates three mornings a week, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Any person can telephone the front office at 497 2317 and make an appointment. There is a simple Intake form that the client is required to fill out, giving some personal background information. There is an administration charge of EC$10.00. That is it. The attorney will see the client and offer advice on whatever the problem is.

Sanford Richardson is the Director of the Department. When the idea for offering the service was first put to him, he jumped at it. Dr Bonnie Richardson-Lake is the brave Permanent Secretary who took the project to the Hon McNeil Rogers and got it officially sanctioned. First Kishana Rogers, and now Janique Richardson, act as the initial contact at reception. All the staff in the Department have been kind and generous with their time and advice. Several lawyers have taken clients as either pro bono cases or at greatly discounted cost. Thomas Astaphan of Astaphan and Associates, Eustella Fontaine of Caribbean Associated Attorneys, Ricki Camacho of Joyce Kentish and Associates, Cora Richardson Hodge, and Keesha Webster have all provided excellent services to the clients of the Clinic. For this we thank them.

The majority of the problems brought to the clinic fall in the area of family law. These range from child support and custody cases, to adoption and divorce. Family law is closely followed by criminal law. These involve visiting the prison to consult with and advise mostly juvenile offenders. Probate and administration questions compete with land disputes for attention. All in all, it is just like a normal legal office.

The Clinic is just one year old last month. I am inordinately proud of it. But, I missed its birthday celebrations!


16 December, 2007

Dolphinarium


The Present State of the Dolphinarium. The Dolphin Discovery facility at Meads Bay is closed down. It appears to have been abandoned by the previous management. There seems to be only a handyman present on the site during the day. He tries valiently and without management guidance to keep up with basic maintenance. The dolphins are left to swim in their own waste. The water has become badly polluted. It is now in what must be a dangerous state for the health of the dolphins and anyone else, for that matter, venturing into the water.

The relevant authorities are in the process of deciding whether to permit Dolphin Discovery to move to a new site at the Sandy Spit at Blowing Point. They are said to be going to make an independent judgment. They will consider the track record of these people and they will study the Environment Impact Statement presented to them by Applied Technology and Management Inc of West Palm Beach, Florida, and dated November 2007 [link here]. I thought I would help you to see what the authorities will find when they consider the present facility in conjunction with what the EIS says. This is a sort of photo-essay. It is only a few of the photos that were sent to me. Each has as its caption a quote from the EIS.

EIS, page 22: Dolphin Discovery currently operates an existing facility on Anguilla at Meads Bay, an operation that has been a substantial contributor to the tourist-based Anguilla economy.”

EIS, page 1: The Developer has demonstrated that they will ensure the animals’ welfare and veterinarians will monitor the dolphins’ health and provide appropriate care.”

EIS, page 17: Ongoing observations will occur daily by both the behaviour and medical staff. . . . The Dolphin Discovery project will employ numerous highly qualified professionals with experience in the area of marine mammal care. . . . All relevant staff members will be trained on animal evaluation, including diseases, pathogens, and injuries that are known to occur in captive bottlenose dolphins.”

EIS, page 40: Fish and other aquatic organisms depend on dissolved oxygen (DO), which is the oxygen present in water, to live. . . Dissolved oxygen can drop to dangerously low concentrations in water bodies that are very warm and/or have an excess of organic matter. Organic matter can originate locally via large growths and subsequent deaths of living organisms (oftentimes phytoplankton responding to an enrichment of nutrients), or organic matter can originate elsewhere and enter the water body via waste water treatment plants, failing septic tanks, and agricultural and urban runoff.”

EIS, page 17: Cleaning, food preparation and personal hygiene procedures such as hand washing and the use of footpaths will be taught to each staff member.”

EIS, page 19: All food preparation equipment (including buckets, sinks, scales, etc) and facilities will be cleaned and disinfected daily or more often as needed. The project will follow the US Department of Agriculture’s regulations for preparation of food.”

EIS, page 20: The wastewater collection and transmission systems will transport the wastewater via gravity in order to minimize the use of pumps and mechanical equipment which require additional maintenance and power.”

EIS, page 20: The wastewater collection system will be designed to handle estimated peak hourly flow conditions such that even during peak conditions, the wastewater will be transported away from the event/entertainment areas in order to eliminate any potential nuisance from overflows and backups in the system.”

EIS, page 25: Legislation in Anguilla regarding environmental management and conservation is limited.”

EIS, page 27: Legislation pertaining to waste disposal and noise quality and pollution is very restricted and would not apply to the present development.”

EIS, page 27: There are no local standards for dolphins that are kept in captivity that apply to this project. The Developer will comply with accepted standards for other Caribbean nations as presented by the Government of Anguilla. Minimum suggested standards to use are the human swimming water quality criteria used in the state of Florida. Secondary guidance from similar facilities such as in Ocho Rios, Jamaica, include ensuring that the water quality criteria that are maintained are within human criteria as these are considerably more stringent than those established for dolphins.”

EIS, page 41: In marine waters, particularly those of the Caribbean, nutrients are present in low amounts. When they become available in large quantities in surface waters, they can cause excessive growth of algae and other plants.”

EIS, page 42: Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is the sum of organic nitrogen and ammonia in a water body. The measurement of TKN can indicate the origin of nitrogen loads. For example, high measurements of TKN typically result from sewage and manure discharges to water bodies.”

I don’t think it would be unfair to say that Dolphin Discovery has provided government with all the evidence it needs to determine the commitment of these people to maintaining the highest health and animal care standards at their Anguilla facility. Let us hope government will make their decision based on the evidence.

15 December, 2007

FAC


The Foreign Affairs Committee. The FAC, about which I have previously written [link here], has begun its consultations. Our Chief Minister met with the Committee during the recent meetings in London. I was particularly impressed with the following answer to question 104:

Q104 Chairman: You are only the Chief Minister?

Osbourne Fleming: I am only that and I delegate and I leave the guys to themselves. However, we are doing well financially. When you consider our geographical position, we are edging up. Our offshore services are slowly coming up. I am glad that the Minister of Finance is here: sometimes I get tired of him over there.

To read the testimony for yourself, you might like to click on the following link:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/uc147-i/uc14702.htm

Well, what do you make of it?


14 December, 2007

Non-roads


Roads that Go Nowhere. I want to take you through one last example of a road that is not a road. If you have read the previous three posts, you will know what I mean.

The surveyor's plan that we are going to look at is not chosen because there is anything particularly special about it. I suspect that the same situation that it depicts has been created all over the island. I only pick it because (a) it involves the parcel of land immediately to my north and I am familiar with it, and (b) it has only recently been brought to my attention. Let us look at it.


We are looking at a sub-division of Parcel 6 to the north. You will notice that Parcels 293 and 294 lie to the south of it. This is my property, where I live at North Hill. My mother’s land lies to the east, or right of the plan. You will see a right of way that skirts around my property to the west, north, and east of my land. It is painted red. That used to be a 10 ft right of way that ran through the center of my property. Several years ago, I agreed with my mother that we would relocate the road to where it now lies. We would make it a joint road. It would also benefit my neighbour immediately to the north. She owns Parcel 6. Her land was cut off and had no access to the main road, which lies some distance to the west. My road would give her land access for the first time. I contacted her in St Thomas. She agreed that we should register a joint right of way along our boundaries. She told me who her lawyer was. I prepared the Grant of Easement forms provided by the Land Registry. I sent them to her lawyer to send on to her for signing and to be returned to me for registration. Months passed. Nothing happened. I repeatedly contacted the lawyer. There was no explanation why the forms were not forthcoming. I could not wait any longer to provide my mother with access in case she wished to deal in her property. I registered the forms with my signature and that of my mother. I hoped that in due course my neighbour’s forms would turn up. That is why the right of way to the west and east is 10 ft. That to the north is only 5 ft. It was supposed to be supplemented by the same amount of land from my neighbour. Her forms never turned up and were never registered. She never got a right of access to her land.

Knowing that a five-foot roadway was inadequate, I constructed my fence about 12 feet back from my boundary. I made a 12 ft road all around the property. There is physically plenty of room for a car to pass around my existing fence. That is the road I use to enter my yard.

A few weeks ago, I received a telephone call. My neighbour was outside my fence. She was showing a prospective purchaser one of the lots that Parcel 6 had been divided into. I went out to say hello. I was meeting her in person for the first time. She was there with her surveyor. I learned that the land had been subdivided. I saw the plan above for the first time. I can only describe my reaction as shock and horror. What does it depict?

First, you will notice that the subdivision includes “Lot #6” which is called a “Road”. You will see that it goes the full length of what used to be parcel 6 and even swings around to the west and goes nowhere. It does me no harm. I am not quarreling with it. I do feel sorry for my neighbour. The road is not a road at all! Those of you who are lawyers or surveyors or who have read the previous three articles understand that already. For those of you that are unclear, let me explain.

First, she has not been invited by government to make it a public road. She has not given it to the government. It is still registered in her name. She has not signed a transfer to the Crown. It is not a public road. Neither is it an adequate private road, or right of way. It might conceivably, if grants of easement have been registered in favour of Lots 1-5, provide easements of right of way for one over the other. Though I have not checked, given the sloppy planning here, I seriously doubt if that has been done.

Second, it is not a proper right of way. It does not take the owner of any of these lots to the nearest public road. Even if it had been given to the government, it does not connect to any other public road. It does not connect in law with my private road that runs over my land. Just as I have no right to trespass on the imaginary road called “Lot #6”, so she has no right to pass on my road. She can put up a notice barring me from trespassing on her Lot #6. I could put up a barrier at the corner of my road and block any one from accessing it. We have no rights over each other’s land. This is a road that goes nowhere.

What should have been done should by now have been obvious to you, if you have been reading the previous posts. She, or her surveyor, or both of them, should have contacted me. They should have contacted the other affected landowners. They should have told us of their plans to sub-divide Parcel 6. They should have explained to us that the Land Development Control Committee is insisting that the sub-divisions have a 25 ft access road. I understand from the surveyor that this is what in fact happened. They should have pointed out to us that we had already made provision on the register and on the ground for a road. We might have been asked politely if we would agree to incorporate it into the proposed road that would be shown on the sub-division. There is no reason to believe that we would have objected. My neighbour would have got her 25 ft road. She would have lost .3 and not .61 of an acre. That is more than half an acre. She is selling one of the lots for US$150,000.00. I am no good at mathematics, but I calculate that as a completely unnecessary loss to her of US$50,000.00 in round figures.

And, she still does not have a right of access to her land!

If she tries to sell it to someone who has proper legal advice, the prospective purchaser will be told that the land has no access to a public road. No properly advised person would risk purchasing this land without a registered right of way.

Tell me if you can understand why my neighbour was advised to proceed in this way. Does this make any sense to you?

As far as I am concerned it is a complete fiasco.

What does the LDCC think it is doing?

Does it have a legal adviser who attends Committee meetings, and did the legal adviser study and practice conveyancing law?