Clergy Politicians

Constitutional Discussions 14: Ministers of Religion Disqualified to be Candidates. Section 37 of the Constitution sets out some disqualifications for running in elections as a candidate. One of them is if you are a Minister of Religion. This is a traditional disqualification. It exists in Britain. There is a historical reason. The church is represented in the British Parliament by the Bishops who are members of the House of Lords. The British take the view that it is unfair to give the church a second bite at the cherry by letting them run in politics as candidates for election to the House of Commons. We have no House of Lords in Anguilla. The Commission discussed this issue up and down the island. People wrote-in on the Commission’s website. Some sent emails to members of the Commission. Some turned out to public meetings. There were some Anguillians in favour of keeping the restriction. They thought that clergymen had an unfair advantage in being able to influence their congregation to vote in their favour. These were mainly the “professional politicians”. A large majority of Anguillians making representations to the Commission were in favour of getting rid of it. They thought it might be a positive influence to have someone in the Assembly who would bring a religious perspective to the Assembly’s deliberations. Most churches have members who support a cross-section of political views. Most persons making representations thought that it would be a disaster for a churchman to risk offending half of his congregation by campaigning in politics. For this reason, they thought it highly unlikely that a serving clergyman would risk offending a large portion of his congregation by running in elections.

The Commission accepted the view of the majority. At paragraph 87 of its Report, the Commission recommended that this disqualification be removed. Regrettably, the Members of the Assembly meeting in caucus at the Limestone Bay Café took a different view. They supported the minority in opposing Ministers of Religion running in politics.

They have fallen into error! It is difficult for us non-politicians to appreciate what it is they are afraid of.

Candidates' Residence

Constitutional Discussions 13: Residential Qualification for Candidates. Section 36 of the Constitution provides the qualifications for being a political candidate. You have to be an Anguillian Belonger. If you were not born in Anguilla, you have to be the child of a person born in Anguilla. In the latter case, you must qualify by residing in the island for at least three consecutive years immediately before nomination. If you were born here, you do not have to reside here to be nominated. That is how Osborne Fleming, Victor Banks, and Neil Rogers got nominated even though they were living and working overseas at the time. They had been born here.

The Commission took representations from many persons. Most agreed with keeping the qualification that you must be an Anguillian. More radically, most agreed that the residence qualification should apply equally, regardless of whether you were born here or not. The Commission went along with the majority view. It recommended at paragraph 82 of its Report that this qualification apply in future to all candidates.

Regretfully, the Members of the Assembly, meeting in caucus at the Limestone Bay Café, did not see eye to eye with the Commission. They preferred to keep it open for candidates who were born here to be free of a residence qualification. They would keep the provision as it presently is. They did not base this on any interviews with the public. They did not take a stand based on a different appreciation of what the Anguillians wanted. They simply had a personal preference.

That is not in this case, in my humble view, an adequate basis for differing from the recommendation!

Nominated Members

Constitutional Discussions 12: Nominated Members. The UK has its House of Lords. Antigua and Barbuda and Trinidad and Tobago have their Senate. This is an upper Chamber in what is called a “bi-cameral” parliamentary system. They have two chambers. We in Anguilla have one chamber, the House of Assembly. We have no House of Lords or Senate. Section 35 of the Constitution provides for two persons to be nominated to sit in the Assembly. One is to be nominated by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and the other after consulting the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Nominated Members are, thus, not democratically elected members of the House. The official argument in their favour is that their presence provides an opportunity for non-political and independent views on issues to be expressed in the Assembly. Their true value is to provide an opportunity for patronage by the Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition. They are sometimes appointed from among the party’s candidates who failed to gain their constituency, but whose views their party leader continues to value.

The members of the public who expressed a view on the subject were unanimously opposed to the system continuing. A majority want the Nominated Members to go. The principle objection was that it was anti-democratic. The subsidiary reason was that, with a much increased number of elected members, there is no longer any merit in the argument that the Assembly will benefit from views other than those of the elected politicians. Accordingly, at paragraph 79 of its Recommendations, the Commission urged their abolition.

Members of the Assembly disagree. They prefer to keep the Nominated Members, but without a vote and with a disqualification for persons who had failed at an election bid. The disadvantage of losing an opportunity for patronage, at the expense of the taxpayer, was not lost on the Members of the Assembly. They were all hot to keep alive this perk of office alive!

House of Assembly

Publishing the Order Paper.

On page 7 of Friday’s St Helena Independent you will find the Order Paper for that day’s session of their Legislative Council:

I have never before seen such a thing in an OT newspaper. Here in Anguilla is it rare for The Anguillian or The Herald to give any advance notice of a meeting of the House of Assembly, unless they are meeting for some boring ceremony. I have never known why. My hope that things would be different when David Carty became Speaker has not been rewarded.

Presumably Anguillian Order Papers are a State Secret!

Kor Realty Group

Viceroy Partying. Viceroy is having a party today, Friday, July 27^th, at 5:00 pm at the Viceroy Sales Centre on Meads Bay. I know they're allowed to have a party. It seems inappropriate for them to celebrate themselves given the events of the past month concerning them. Perhaps some of my readers would like to attend this event and maybe take some pictures. Send them to me. We can show all of Anguilla how they play while Anguilla (and the Indians) suffer. Meads Bay beach is a public beach. Will government officials be at the party?

Bradford Korzen, CEO and principal of the Kor Group, is reported to have been on Anguilla Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. He is said to have had a three hour meeting with the Chief Minister on Wednesday. If so, will the CM report on what was talked about?

Board Accountability

Making Board Members Accountable. I read an interesting article on the topic in the Cayman Observer. How many times have we wished we could sue a Board for wasting the public funds? Cayman Islanders think it is time to do something about it. They are discussing putting it in their Constitution!

The governing party has proposed that government should have a power to sanction Board members of Statutory Authorities and government companies deemed to have wasted public funds. Of course, it would be the next government that would bring charges. You would not sue your own Board member, no matter how incompetent and wasteful, would you? But, the previous governments’ appointees will be fair game. Better late than never!

Will such a development bring a damper on volunteers to Boards and committees? I hope so. Only serious people who understand the meaning of the phrase “public trust” should be allowed on a Board in the first place. Public funds are not meant to be a pork barrel to be put into the hands of political supporters for them to dig in to at will.

This initiative follows a series of damming reports by their Auditor General. Does our Auditor General publish damming reports? Does anyone in the public get to see his reports? I would love to know how we can get a copy of his last one. Is it not the sort of document that belongs on the new government website?

What is the use of having a provision in General Orders that any senior civil servant who wastes public funds can be made to repay it, if members of Boards and Statutory Authorities can waste even larger sums of money with impunity? Let us put a similar provision in our new Constitution!

Chagos Islands

July Update. The Chagos Support Association writes in its July Update that its members are deeply disappointed at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s decision to ask leave to Appeal to the House of Lords. This is their fourth appeal and justice delayed is justice denied. We expect better from a government who make a big issue of human rights.

The actual lodging of the appeal came at the very last possible moment and two days after the following letter appeared in the Guardian Newspaper:

“We applaud Gordon Brown's proposal to review uses of the royal prerogative and hope he won't let government lawyers undermine it. Within days, they could ask the Lords to deny the Chagos islanders their right to return to their homeland (Leaders, May 24). Under a bilateral agreement, the US maintains a base on Diego Garcia; but that is 150 miles to the south of the other islands of the Chagos archipelago. On May 23, the court of appeal struck down as unlawful the 2004 orders in council banning the Chagossians from their islands, calling them "an abuse of power". If this appeal proceeds, Mr Brown's administration will be attempting to govern the overseas territories without parliamentary oversight or the possibility of judicial review. After three defeats in the courts, why waste more money on losing an argument he says he doesn't believe in?”

This was signed by : Robert Bain (UK Chagos Support Assoc), Clive Baldwin (Minority Rights Group International), Dr. Vincent Cable MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Tam Dalyell, Geoffrey Fairhurst (Administrator, Ascencion 1999-2002), Andrew George MP, Richard Gifford (Solicitor for Chagossians), Baroness Ludford MEP, Don Mitchell QC (Anguilla), Bernice Olsson (Legislative Council, St. Helena), David Snoxell (High Commissioner to Mauritius 2000-2004), Lord David Steel, Mike Summers (Councillor, Falkland Islands), Caroline Yon JP (Ascension).

The update continues, “We were overwhelmed by the number of supportive and encouraging messages in the wake of the FCO decision. One lady in Yorkshire said she was up to her ankles in water because of the floods but “at least my ankles are on my own land in my own country!” Another said, “The description of Diego Garcia by the American Services as the “Footprint of Freedom” should really be “the Bootprint of Brutality” because there are bootprints all over the bodies of the Chagosians where the British and Americans have stomped all over their Human Rights”.

Reading this report reminds us all that it is not only our Government and Opposition that are to be held suspect when it comes to constitutional reform. The British representatives are employed in a Department with a flawed reputation and history. They have their own agendas. We need to be sure of our principles before we begin treating with them. We need to be certain that our representatives are prepared to insist on matters of principle. If they go into the talks shooting from the hip like some Wild West gunslinger, they will bite the dust. Only persons of known integrity and principle can be trusted with such a responsibility. This is a time of great uncertainty and nervousness for all of us.

Postponed Talks

Interview with Ken Richards of the BBC. The Chief Minister appointed his negotiating team to meet with the British during the course of the week of Monday 2 July 2007. I first learned who they were when I met with other team members on Tuesday 17 July in our first planning session. Chief Minister Fleming made me sit next to him and act as spokesman for the Commission's recommendations. At this meeting, Dame Bernice Lake QC introduced our Ministers to the concept of “complete internal self-government”. They were quite taken with this phrase. The Chief Minister fell in love with it immediately. When our strategy meeting broke up that afternoon, it was with the determination to meet with the British on the following Monday morning to discuss full internal self-government.

As I drove away from the meeting, Bailiff Michael Fleming stepped forward from where he was lying in wait to serve me with a lawyer's letter threatening a lawsuit for libel if I did not tone down my criticisms of government ministers on this Blog!

By Thursday, two days later, the Chief Minister was announcing on radio that he had decided to hold a meeting of the House of Assembly on Monday morning. They would debate full internal self-government. Presumably, the British team were to be attentive observers and listeners. The first time I heard about this change of plan was when the Chief Minister announced it on radio.

By Friday morning, he had a new plan. I first heard it on radio again. He was announcing that he had decided to ask the Governor to completely postpone the meeting with the British. His new idea was for government to more thoroughly discuss the concept of “full internal self-government” with the Anguillian people. That morning the Concerned Citizens Movement led a demonstration on Government House demanding a referendum on any new Constitution. Over the weekend, I learned that the British team had been told to cancel their flight arrangements.

Thorough Anguillian consultation on measures for constitutional advancement is a good, indeed an essential, thing. The problem is that it should have started one year ago, immediately after the Report of the Constitutional Commission had been presented!

On Monday morning, I am sitting at home minding my business. The phone rings. It is well-known BBC "Caribbean Report" presenter Ken Richards. He is telephoning from London. Am I willing to talk about the circumstances surrounding the postponement of the constitutional talks with the British team? He had learned that this had been announced by the Chief Minister just two or three days before the team was due to arrive in Anguilla. It would have been extremely discourteous if it had been intentional. But, as I explained, it was only to be expected from a government made up of businessman-types, face-to-face talkers, apparent devotees of the ad-hoc system of government, men who appear to refuse to read a planning document, or able to study and adopt a strategy brief. Thank God for the postponement, I said, in effect. It might give government’s new advisers a chance to come up with a publicly acceptable programme for constitutional advancement.

To hear the broadcast, go to the Americas page of the BBC News website. In the right-hand column you will see the audio for “Caribbean Report”. Click on “Listen”. If you have the appropriate speakers, you should hear the interview. Or, if I have done it right, the last link should take you straight to the audio! [Sorry, late readers. By Tuesday evening BBC Caribbean Report had moved on to other stories. You will have to try to access the BBC archives.]

Do you think Bunton is capable of long-haul planning? Will he stick the course? Or, will he react to the next last person who speaks to him, as usual?

One of my concerns is that I do not know who the Chief Minister is now listening to. What will be his next announced “plan”? I learn he says that he is now a committed member of the Concerned Citizens Movement. No doubt, he will soon claim them as part of his new negotiating team.

No, I did not tell Ken Richards about all this confusion. It was too embarrassing to talk about it on the radio in front of millions of listeners!

Members at Large

Constitutional Discussions 11: Members at Large. Section 35 of the Constitution provides for there to be not less than seven elected representatives. It does not fix the number of elected members. The Elections Act provides for seven members. The Act could be amended to provide for any number greater than seven without amending the Constitution. The Constitution does not say how they are to be elected. The Act says they are elected on the first past the post system. This is the classic Westminster-style system of representation. We could change to a system of proportional representation without changing the Constitution.

Members at large are members who are elected by the entire island. They do not represent a particular constituency. Each party puts up a slate of candidates. Those with the most votes are declared to have won a seat in the Assembly. The system became popular in the Leeward Islands when Montserrat was devastated in 1994 by the Soufriere Volcano. People were dispersed throughout the island. The constituency system was thrown into ruins. All their Montserrat candidates have been elected at large since. The Virgin Islands has introduced several members at large into their system. The present Chief Minister, Dr Orlando Smith, is an at large candidate of his party. The system has obvious advantages and disadvantage. A candidate at large is not required to buy the votes of his constituents. It is practically impossible to do so across the entire country. He does not depend on having more cousins in his village than the other candidates to ensure his victory. He runs on merit alone.

The Commission accepted what appeared to be the general consensus among members of the public that there ought to be nine constituency representatives and four members at large. That formula appeared to represent the aspirations of the average Anguillian for an improvement in standards in the Assembly. This was its recommendation at paragraph 76 of its Report. It would mean amending the Elections Act to provide accordingly. Members of the Assembly in their discussions in caucus at the Limestone Bay Café did not agree. They thought that there should be nine constituencies, but only two members at large. They would reduce the total number of elected members from the Commission’s recommended thirteen to a total of eleven.

That is not in keeping with the hopes of the average thinking Anguillian. Maybe, the Members of the Assembly are superstitious about the number thirteen?

Demonstration

Concerned Citizens March.

On Friday 20 July an almost unprecedented incident took place. Anguillians have been dormant for years. No one dares to take part in any demonstration. Jobs are at stake. Fear of victimization is rampant. But, Friday was different. There was a public march. It was called by the Concerned Citizens Movement.

There were two issues at stake. They were both included in one petition. The petition was taken by a crowd of demonstrators from The Valley to the Governor’s residence at Government House at Old Ta. I estimate some 200 person participated. The petition concerned two separate issues. A pity really. I would have marched in support of one, but not the other.

One issue was that of suspicion of corruption at the highest levels of government. Why have our Ministers permitted the US company, Viceroy, to take over so many different areas of land?

The inviolable rule has been that no developer has been permitted to control more than one project. That rule has lasted for decades. All governments obeyed it. No one developer would be permitted to control our government and our economy.

But, we have just woken up to the realization that Viceroy controls three different areas of the island. And, they are negotiating for more. The people were determined to express their displeasure and to say to our government, No more. The petition went further and demanded an enquiry into the relationship that has built up between these developers and our government ministers.

That was one issue that I would have signed with pleasure. With conviction. With earnestness. That is an issue that every Anguillian should feel deeply ashamed towards our government about. If that had been the only issue, I would have been there in the marching crowd.

The second issue was to do with the Constitution. It was a demand for a referendum to approve any new Constitution. I happen to have a deep-seated and irreversible aversion to referendums. They are poisonous plants. They are not, and never have been, anywhere in the world, at any time in history, a way of finding out the people’s attitude to an issue. They have always been used by the people as an indicator as to how they feel about the government. A referendum always ends up being a popularity vote on the government. It is never an expression of opinion on the issue contained in the referendum. That is the only reason I was not in the march.

I am firmly convinced that other methods must be used to educate the people and find out their feelings about the issues involved in the Constitution. A referendum urged by a popular government will always return a yes vote. A referendum urged by an unpopular government will always return a no vote.

If the present government of Anguilla put the issue of whether or not God exists to the vote today, and urged people to vote yes, the result would be that most people would vote that God does not exist. Even though that is the opposite of what they truly believe.

The protest march ended peacefully. The police did a good job of controlling traffic and facilitating the demonstration. It was proof that the system that requires demonstrators to get police permission for a march can work well. Congratulations to all concerned. Even though I do not approve of the main purpose of the petition: the referendum.

Enlarging Assembly

Constitutional Discussions 10: Increasing the Number of Members of the House of Assembly. There are seven elected members in the Anguilla House of Assembly. There are four non-elected members. They are the Nominated and the Ex-officio Members. Seven elected representatives to debate all aspects of Anguilla’s life and problems! Most of them are not great speakers. Some of them are not great thinkers. Very few of the important issues get aired in Anguilla’s House of Assembly. We all listen on our radios to the broadcast debates. We come away frustrated, knowing each time that it was another opportunity missed.

One obvious way to improve the House is to increase the number of its members. There are other statistical arguments. The size of the Anguilla House was fixed in the 1970s. The population of Anguilla did not then exceed 6,000 souls. We are now nearer to 12,000. On that basis there is ground to suggest that the size of the House should be doubled. Elsewhere, the Commission has recommended that the two Nominated Members should be abolished. The Commission also recommended that the two ex-officio members, the Deputy Governor and the Attorney-General, should continue to be allowed to be present and to express their views, but should be deprived of the right to vote. That leaves seven voting members in the Assembly. For that reason, the number of members calls out to be increased.

During the public discussions, representations were made that the Assembly should be increased to as many as 21 elected representatives. Others wanted 15 representatives to ensure proper discussion and debate of the issues. One or two suggested leaving it at the present 11 voting members. The Commission, however, went with the majority. At paragraph 74 of its Report, it recommended that the House be increased to a total of 13 elected representatives. They were to be made up of nine from constituencies and four elected at large. That would amount to an increase of only two from the present 11 voting members of the Assembly.

Members of the Assembly disagreed. They are happy with an increase of only four, to a total of eleven elected representatives. That falls below most of the recommendations and representations made to the Commission during its research and discussions. It would not meet the expectations and aspirations of any part of the Anguillian public. It has no substance or merit, in my humble view.

Just my opinion.

Cabinet Meetings

Constitutional Discussions 9: Cabinet Meetings. The UK has an “unwritten” Constitution. Citizens of the UK cannot rely on a document called a Constitution. That does not mean they do not have a Constitution. They have a highly developed Constitution. It consists of various separate laws and parts of laws, and, more importantly, various conventions and practices that are as fundamental and as binding as if they had been written in a document. Anguilla, like most of our West Indies, has a democracy that is very new. Adult suffrage only dates back to the 1950s. We have very few conventions. Where they exist, they are not yet well established. We cannot rely on our leaders to always do the right thing. It is important to put down in writing some of the rules that in other, more developed, countries they keep as conventions.

One of these important rules is that Cabinet must meet frequently to discuss the affairs of government. The practice in Anguilla is for the meeting to take place at the Governor’s office every Thursday morning. The Governor sends out the notice and in theory has the power to set the Agenda. The Commission recommended at paragraph 67 of its Report that the section be amended. Anguillians would prefer our Constitution to provide for regular weekly meetings of a Cabinet, to be summoned by the Premier, and with the obligation that he must do so if two or more Ministers require it.

Members of the Assembly disagreed. They prefer to leave the provision as it is. They are happy for the Governor to be responsible for summoning Cabinet meetings.

God alone knows why!

Parliamentary Secretary

Constitutional Discussions 8: Parliamentary Secretary. The post of Parliamentary Secretary was invented in 1990. It is a sort of “junior minister”. It is a form of patronage. It exists for the Chief Minister to be able to give a high salaried executive position to a party supporter who will be of ministerial rank, but not have the right to attend Cabinet meetings. It is a relatively new invention in the Anguilla Constitution. Sir Emile Gumbs, who was Chief Minister at the time, wanted it to reward David Carty. David was our first Parliamentary Secretary.

When the government bench in the House of Assembly is limited to four members, with the other three elected members in opposition, it has been used to reward a non-elected party supporter with a sort of junior minister position. In this respect, it is essentially anti-democratic. It permits a non-elected person to be given the rank of Minister. When there are five elected members sitting on the government side in the House of Assembly, it permits the Chief Minister to reward the fifth party-supporter. He can give the elected non-minister a salaried position as a reward or substitute for not being a Minister. That is the role presently being played by Albert Hughes. Its main utility has been to ease the work-load of one of the Ministers. The Chief Minister can spin off some of his work onto a junior minister who does not hold Cabinet rank. It is a sort of safety valve. It is needed because of the shortage of Ministers.

Representations made to the Commission revealed that the majority of Anguillians who had a view on the subject, took the position that this office was now redundant. It was demeaning to the office holder. In future anyone who the Chief Minister wanted to make a Minister must have been elected to the House. Never again should he be able to appoint a non-elected member to hold such high executive office. Now that the Commission was recommending that Cabinet increase from four elected members of the Assembly to six, there was no justification for keeping the position of Parliamentary Secretary. The Commission recommended at paragraph 42 of its Report that the post be abolished.

The members of the House of Assembly meeting in caucus at the Limestone Bay Café took a different view. They agreed that they would prefer to keep the position, but to call it “Junior Minister”. They gave no reason. The only one that occurs to me is based on the reality of politics. Chief Ministers, like Presidents, require as much patronage as they can get to reward supporters. This is just one more tool to reward party stalwarts at the expense of the public purse. If that is the real reason, it is just not good enough. Six ministers with Cabinet rank will do us quite nicely for the foreseeable future. There will be no need for a Junior Minister.

Cabinet

Constitutional Discussions 7: Cabinet. At present, section 23 of the Constitution provides for an Executive Council, or Cabinet, consisting of the Chief Minister, or Premier, three Ministers, and the Deputy Governor and Attorney-General. It is widely accepted on the island that the number of Ministers is too low.

The Minister of Finance can hardly be expected to attend all the local, regional, and international meetings and functions related to that Ministry and still find time to be in office. It is even more unreasonable to expect him to function full-time as a Minister of Tourism, and to attend all the tourism activities that a properly functioning Minister of Tourism is expected to attend.

Similarly, the Minister of Education cannot be an efficient and effective Minister of Health. Nor can the Chief Minister and Minister of Home Affairs and Labour also perform effectively as Minister of Lands.

We have to have more Ministers. The Commission heard several different representations from the public. We took into account the fact that burdensome as the various Ministries are now, the weight of office will grow in the coming years as Anguilla continues to develop at breakneck speed. We came down on the number six. That is, there should be a Premier and five Ministers. Even if there is a little leeway now in that we can do with one fewer Minister, we thought we should fix the maximum at six. The Premier could always appoint only five. He is not obliged to fill the maximum number if he does not think it necessary. The Constitution we put in place today will almost certainly be the one we are working with in ten years time.

Members of the House of Assembly did not agree. They were of the view that the job could be done with a Premier and four Ministers. The government members agreed with the opposition members that they prefer the new Constitution to say that the maximum number of Ministers, including the Premier, be five.

I still cannot for the life of me see how they could make such a mistake. It makes no sense at all.

Sued

Letter Before Action. Well, I have got my first lawyer’s letter. It is odd to be on the receiving end of a process I have used so often before. There is always a first time for anything. This is what the letter said.

Re: Weblog – Corruption-Free Anguilla dated July 4, 2007 under Title “Confusion”

We act for and on behalf of the following Ministers of the Government of Anguilla in their personal capacity with respect to the captioned matter.

(1) The Honourable Mr Evans McNeil Rogers, Minister of Social Services

(2) The Honourable Mr Kenneth Harrigan, Minister of Infrastructure, Communications, Utility and Housing

(3) The Honourable Mr Victor Banks, Minister of Finance

(4) The Honourable Mr Osborne Fleming, Chief Minister

We are instructed that on the 4 July 2007 you made and published or caused to be published and distributed on your weblog, found at the following internet address http://corruptionfreeanguilla.blogspot.com, under the heading “Confusion” certain statements, in particular at paragraph 4, which are defamatory against the Ministers.

The Ministers have no objection to fair and honest criticism, but they are not prepared to remain indifferent to such libelous allegations on their personal character as you have made.

We are therefore instructed to demand that you immediately

(1) make and cause to be published a full and unqualified apology for and withdrawal of, the imputations contained on your said weblog, such apology to be published at your own expense on your said weblog and in The Anguillian (the form of such apology to be approved by us);

(2) give an undertaking not to continue the publication of said statements contained under the heading referred to, or publish any similar statements of or concerning the Ministers;

(3) make an offer for damages; and

(4) indemnify the Ministers with respect to such legal costs as they have incurred thus far.

Failing a satisfactory reply within (7) days from receipt of this letter our instructions are to take the necessary legal action against you.

Please be guided accordingly.

Yours faithfully,

Keithley Lake & Associates

(sd) Keithley FT Lake

Attorney-at-Law

I am taking advice from my attorneys as to the best way to respond. Stay tuned for the latest developments.

Acting Governor

Constitutional Discussions 6: The Executive. Sections 20 and 21 of the Constitution deal with the appointment of an acting governor and a governor’s deputy when the governor is absent. The governor appoints who he wants. At paragraphs 32 and 33 of their Report, the Commission made no recommendations for alteration. We figured that was the business of the governor and the British government. It was nothing to do with us.

Members of the House of Assembly had a different view. They took the position that there ought to be some local involvement in who should act temporarily when the governor was absent. They felt the Premier should be consulted. They agreed among themselves that they would prefer to see both the appointment of an acting governor and a governor’s deputy required to be after consultation with the Premier. They were not suggesting that the Premier should have a veto power. They were not recommending that it should say that the governor should act “on the advice of” the Premier. They want the Premier only to be consulted.

Personally, I have no problem with this suggestion. It contributes to an increase in local participation in government. It allows the Premier to discuss which Permanent Secretary ought to be given a turn at being acting governor. It is a democracy credit rather than a democracy deficit. I am all in favour of it.

Redress

Constitutional Discussions 5: Other Means of Redress. When one of your fundamental rights is infringed by government, you can take the matter to court. You can bring a case under section 16 of the Constitution. This says that you may apply to the High Court for redress. Usually, this is for a declaration and damages. That does not stop you from bring a case of a different kind. For example, section 3 of the Constitution protects your right to personal liberty. This fundamental right is universally recognised in all the Constitutions of our West Indies. You will find it in Antigua and in St Kitts, and in Grenada and in St Vincent. In all these islands, you can only be deprived of your liberty in accordance with the law. A police officer might illegally lock you up in a prison cell for a week. He might “throw away the key”. He might beat you about the head with a folded telephone directory at his leisure. You could apply to the court for a declaration that your fundamental right to your personal liberty has been infringed. You could claim and be awarded damages for this breach and for the injuries which resulted. Alternatively, you could bring an ordinary court action. You could sue the officer and the government. You would claim damages for the torts of wrongful arrest and for assault and battery. You have a choice as to how to come to court.

Section 16 gives the High Court the jurisdiction to hear a case brought for infringement of your rights. A problem arises with the proviso to subsection (2). A proviso is a sentence which begins, “Provided that . . .” This one says, “Provided that the High Court may decline to exercise its powers under this subsection if it is satisfied that adequate means of redress for the contravention alleged are or have been available to the person concerned under any other law.” This proviso has caused confusion up and down the West Indies. In some islands, the lawyers prefer to take every breach of the Constitution to court. In other islands, the lawyers prefer to find any alternative claim they can instead of coming under the Constitution. In some islands, the judges like to give priority to Constitutional actions. In other islands, the judges run away from Constitutional actions. There is no consistency.

We in Anguilla might get accustomed to bringing cases for breach of the Constitution to court. Our present judge might encourage that by dealing promptly with such cases. Then, after a few years, another judge might be assigned to Anguilla. This judge might not like constitutional cases. The A-G’s Chambers soon find out the preference of the new judge. The A-G will know what to do to get a well deserved constitutional case dismissed. He will point out to the judge that “alternative means of redress” exist. The judge will throw out your case and tell you to start over and come again under the ordinary law. What a waste of time and money! How distressing it is not to be sure that you can come to the High Court when your Constitutional rights have been infringed! It is you who should have the choice how to come before the Court. There are times when your lawyer might advise you to bring a Constitutional action. There are other times when she might advise you to bring an ordinary action. It should not depend on the mood of the judge or the character of the Attorney-General whether your Constitutional action will be allowed to proceed.

The Commission therefore recommended, at paragraph 27 of their Report, that the proviso should be removed in its entirety. That would oblige a court to deal with your deserving Constitutional action, regardless if you could have sued for something else. This is not a novel suggestion. The proviso has caused so many problems that it has been removed from the Constitutions of other jurisdictions. I no longer have my notes with me on this point. Perhaps some lawyer would like to remind us which countries have done this? It was very regrettable in my view when the members of the House of Assembly persuaded themselves in their meeting at Limestone Bay Café that they would not support this recommendation. They preferred to keep the Constitution as it is, with the confusing proviso!

A pox on their houses, you might say. Let them wait until they want to bring a Constitutional case and the judge tells them their case is dismissed because they could have brought an ordinary lawsuit! The problem is that we cannot wait until then. It is you or me who might want to bring a case. We will not be sure whether to sue in one way, or whether we must sue in another. Neither will our lawyer know what to do!

I can only hope that the visiting British team will not give us any problem just because the Members of the Assembly did not support this recommendation.

Discrimination

Constitutional Discussions 4: Discrimination. One of the fundamental human rights dealt with in the 1982 Constitution of Anguilla is protection from discrimination. Section 13 enshrines the right. It does not cover every kind of discrimination. It applies to discrimination on the grounds of race, place of origin, political opinion, colour, creed or sex. We will all remember the pride of the National Council of Women when they got the prohibition against discrimination on the grounds of sex included in the Constitution for the first time in the 1990 revision. That was the amendment which made it illegal to pay a woman in Anguilla less than a man for doing the same job. Before that, there were several ways in which the law in Anguilla discriminated against women.

There are exceptions to the right to be protected from discrimination. The Constitution mentions three. The first is numbered (4)(a). It permits us to pass a law discriminating against non-belongers. That is what makes it legal for us to prohibit non-belongers from owning land in Anguilla without a licence. If we did not have this exception, it might be illegal to pass a law discriminating against non-Anguillians who want to purchase property in Anguilla. The second exception is numbered (4)(b). It relates to what is called the “personal law”. This means matters such as adoption, marriage, divorce, burial, devolution of property on death, or other like matters. I cannot think of a good example at the moment. But, this is the exception that would permit us to make a law prohibiting a Christian from adopting a Muslim, or a white family from adopting a black child. We do not do any of this. I am only making up examples of what could be permitted. The third exception is numbered (4)(c). It allows us to discriminate in taxation. That is what makes it legal for us to tax a non-belonger differently from an Anguillian. Without this exception, the Aliens Landholding Licence tax might be challenged as being discriminatory.

The Members of the House of Assembly suggested a fourth exception to be numbered (4)(d). It would add the words, “for the provision of services in favour of Anguillians”. They wanted to make it legal to pass a law discriminating in favour of Anguillians in the provision of services. The problem they were discussing is what is to happen in the future, for example, if Indian contract labour parents begin to demand schools for their children. If we refused might we face the risk of discriminating in the provision of educational services on the basis of race, place of origin, or colour? What if our hospital is inundated by immigrant labour coming with medical problems? Can we make a rule that only Anguillans can get subsidised treatment, and all others must pay the full economic cost. Without this exception, it might be discriminatory for medical services to be provided at one rate for Anguillians and another rate for non-Anguillians.

I do not have a problem with that amendment to the Commission’s recommendations. What about you?

Property

Constitutional Discussions 3: Protection of Property. Section 7 of the Constitution protects our fundamental right not to be deprived of our property. It says that no interest in or right over any property of any description shall be compulsorily acquired except under a law which prescribes how you are to be compensated. The Commission in its Report of 25 August recommended that the section be amended to provide that the compensation is required to be paid in cash.

The problem that was being addressed is that the Constitution says that your property can only be taken away from you under the provisions of a law that prescribes how you are to be compensated. But, it does not say that you have to be compensated in cash. There have been times, in other parts of the Commonwealth, when governments have tried to compensate landowners by giving them bonds redeemable in 20 years. Others have tried to force alternative land on you. Courts have tended to hold that “compensation” means compensation in cash or its equivalent.

Members of the House of Assembly discussed this recommendation. It was the second time that they came up with a variation on the recommendations made by the Commission. They suggested another word. They took the view that “cash” was too restrictive. A wire transfer is not cash. A bank draft is not cash. A bank manager’s cheque is not cash. But, these are all as good as cash. They thought that the word “money” was a better word than “cash”. They came up with this suggestion in order to make the recommendation of the Commission more effective, more workable.

I do not have a problem with that. I am happy to accept their alternative suggestion.

Bail

Constitutional Discussions 2: The Right to Bail. The Report of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission has been published and in the public domain since 25 August 2006. It can be read and downloaded to your computer from the government website. Its contents have been discussed on innumerable radio talk shows and in the press. Public meetings have been held throughout the island to give those interested an opportunity to attend and present their views. These meetings were not very well attended. Constitutions are a dry subject and of interest only to a few persons. Many more persons listened to the discussions as they were broadcast live on radio. The recommendations should be well known to you by now. So, I am not going to go through them all one by one.

Members of the House of Assembly met in caucus at Limestone Bay Café. Present were the elected members, the nominated members, and the ex-officio members. I had the honour of being asked by the Chief Minister to lead the members in their discussions. They debated the recommendations. I took notes of what they had to say. At the end of the meetings, I circulated them with a list of their views as they diverged from the views of the Commission. I have a copy of those notes. I am going to use them to discuss with you, my readers, the views of the members of the House of Assembly. At no time have I been asked to keep these notes private. In any event, the views they record have been expressed from time to time in public by members of the House of Assembly. This was particularly true at the public meetings called by the Chief Minister. Various persons criticised the variations introduced by the Members of the Assembly. Some of the suggested variations caused quite heated debates. Let us now begin to look at some of them.

The first divergence from the recommendations of the Commission was at paragraph 13 of the Report. The Constitution provides at section 3(3) that any person who is arrested on suspicion of having committed or being about to commit a crime, and who is not released, shall be brought “without delay” before a court. It is not that you are entitled to bail after 48 hours. It is only that the police cannot keep you locked up indefinitely without bail. They must bring you before a Magistrate after 48 hours. There may be good reasons why you should not be released on bail. You may run away. You may go back to commit an offence immediately you are released. You may be a homicidal maniac who is a danger to the community if released. Let the Magistrate decide. Experience all over the world has shown that it is safer to let a judicial officer decide who should be bailed and who should not.

The Commission recommended that the phrase “without delay” should be replaced by “within 48 hours”. It is no use having a right to bail, if you can be detained until some police officer decides that it is convenient to take you to the Magistrate to apply for bail. The members of the Assembly disagreed, and decided that they would prefer to leave it as it is. They were not convinced by the argument of the Commission that the phrase “without delay” was ambiguous. They were not convinced that it has caused much distress in the past. Nor were they impressed by the argument that the more advanced Constitutions of the West Indies have gone in this direction. The independent West Indian constitutions like that for Antigua and Barbuda provide for you to be brought before the court within 48 hours. In South Africa it is “not later than 48 hours after arrest”. In Canada it is 24 hours. In the UK it is “as soon as practicable, and not later than the first sitting after charge”.

Can somebody explain to me why lower human rights standards should apply to us?

Anguilla's Team

Constitutional Discussions 1: Anguilla’s Team. No, I do not know who the members of Anguilla’s team (for the upcoming negotiations with the British) are. No doubt, they are not yet finalized. We shall all learn who they are in due course. What I did was to respond to my invitation. I confirmed to Mr Foster Rogers, the Chief Minister’s Permanent Secretary, that I would be honoured to serve as invited. I met with him. Mr Rogers confirmed to me that the Chief Minister was preparing for the British.

First, he has asked the Attorney-General to prepare a report for him on the likely reaction of the British to the recommendations of the Commission. He wants to know which of our recommendations will be only a formality, and which ones we will have to fight for. That is a good start. It is not a difficult job. It only means going through the constitutions of TCI and BVI to see what amendments the British have recently agreed to. Anything that was good enough for them is good enough for us. Not that we intend to play catch-up. But, it is always good to know what has gone on before.

Second, he intends to hold a number of planning sessions before the British arrive. He is well aware of the need to have the whole team quoting from the same textbook. That makes me feel much better.

Starting with the next post, I intend to do something the members of the House of Assembly should have done. Since they have been too reticent and modest to do it for themselves, I will presume to speak for them. They held a number of caucuses, as I believe our US cousins call them. They met several times at Limestone Bay Café and went through the Report of the Constitutional and Electoral Commission. They came up with some new suggestions for constitutional reform for themselves. They are not secret. The members have spoken about them previously at meetings they held to discuss the Report. They just have not come out formally and expressed themselves on the forum that belongs to them and where the public expect to hear them: The House of Assembly. So, I will itemize the new ideas they came up with. We shall look at them one by one. I will tell you what I think of them.

I am sure the members of the House would like to hear from you as well. After all, they are speaking on your behalf, aren’t they?

This exercise will have the additional benefit of letting them, and the British, know unambiguously and in advance the sort of role that I am going to play in these discussions.

UK Relations

Foreign Affairs Committee. The Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) of the UK House of Commons is one of the key structures to ensure accountability in the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy. It plays an important role in monitoring the policies and performance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

It has just been announced that the FAC will begin a comprehensive inquiry into all 14 of the British Overseas Territories in November. It will be looking at security and standards of governance, transparency and accountability, the role of governors, the regulation of the financial sector, the work of the Overseas Territories Consultative Council, procedures for the amendment of constitutions, human rights, the application of international treaties and conventions and agreements to the Overseas Territories, and relations between the Territories and the UK Parliament.

Anyone can volunteer to submit evidence to the FAC, either orally or in writing. The FAC can request or send for UK government officials to attend sittings of the committee to answer questions. The FAC can also consult any individual or organization on issues relevant to their inquiry. The committee decides what use to make of any information it receives. For more information on submitting evidence, visit the committee's website.

Deputy Governor Mark Capes of Bermuda has been quoted as saying, “In the course of conducting such an inquiry, we would expect the FAC to visit one or more of the Overseas Territories but that is entirely a matter for the FAC to decide.” It is not yet known if the review will see members of the committee wanting to visit Anguilla.

This announcement comes just a few weeks after the FCO reissued a 2003 paper giving guidance on good governance in the Overseas Territories.

Additionally, the UK National Audit Office is carrying out a review of the effectiveness of the FCO’s work in relation to the Territories. A report is expected later this year.

In Bermuda, members of the opposition are calling for a Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations of corruption now circling around the heads of the Premier and other members of government. They have welcomed this initiative of the FAC as another tool in helping the locals to clean up government in their island. It will at the least ensure increased transparency regarding recent developments in that island.

Environmental Impact

Island Development Threshold. The Land Development Control Committee recently asked the Anguilla National Trust to provide comments on an application for outline planning permission by the proprietors of the Conch Bay Development. They intend to build a golf course, resort and residences on Block 78913B Parcel 100 and Block 79013 Parcel 126. The Trust replied in writing on 30 June 2007. It is an interesting document to read. It contains many revelations. These particularly relate to weaknesses in government’s processes and procedures. There are some ominous warnings in the document. Under the heading Additional Questions and Concerns we read:

While the GoA has not yet carried out an assessment to determine what is the development threshold of the island or whether or not the island has reached this point, the LDCC has an obligation to ensure that such an action be taken from the perspective of managing and pacing the development of the island. The ANT has serious concerns about the rate and pace of the island’s development and urges the LDCC to request the relevant agencies in collaboration with the EXCO to conduct an assessment to determine the development saturation point of the island. Such a tool will only serve to protect the island and justify the LDCC’s actions as we continue to grow at extremely rapid paces.

What to make of this warning? Has our island reached its development threshold? Will further unrestrained construction of mega-resorts stretch the island’s infrastructure beyond the breaking point? Will the Land Development Control Committee take the hint, and carry out the needed studies? Will we see any positive reaction to this warning from the Trust?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Constitutional Reform

Anguilla’s Future. I had by now nearly given up on it. But, on Friday afternoon I got my letter. Friday was 6 July, though the letter was dated 4 July. It read:

Dear Justice Mitchell,

Re: Constitutional Discussions

Please be advised that the Government of Anguilla has nominated you to be a member of the Anguilla team for the first round of Constitutional discussions with the British in Anguilla on 23 July 2007, and the second round of discussions in London.

I should be grateful, on behalf of Government, if you would confirm your willingness to participate in these discussions.

The Chief Minister’s Office will be in contact with you as to the time and venue of the meetings.

Yours sincerely,

(sd) M Foster Rogers
Permanent Secretary
Chief Minister’s Office

Well, what do you make of this? I will tell you what first struck me. One, it is very late. I would have thought that the Chief Minster would have chosen his team months ago. But, maybe it is just me who was a late addition, and the others have been in position and preparing themselves for the discussions. It could be that it is just me who does not know what is going on. Two, he does not tell me who the other team members are. I would want Dame Dr Bernice Lake to be a member. I would really like her to be the lead member of the team, but I would settle for her being just a member. I am not happy being a member is she is not a member. I would want Lolita Richardson to be a member. She is very annoying to some persons, but she has the right ideas when it comes to the Constitution of Anguilla. I would want Joyce Kentish, the president of the Bar, to be a member. She will bring the perspective of a senior, active legal practitioner to the discussions. But, I have no idea if there is a single non-government lawyer besides me who has been invited to be a member. Three, the letter does not tell me about any preparations that are to be made to get ready for the visit of the British team. I do not know what the team is going to be negotiating.

The House of Assembly has not yet met to debate the recommendations of the Commission and to put on record their own conclusions and wishes. I would have thought that this was an essential prerequisite for any meeting with the British to take place. There have been private meetings between the government and the opposition representatives in the House. I was present at some of them. But, I do not count private meetings as being of any importance or significance. It is only the commitment made in public meetings that members of the Anguillian public are interested in.

Are the politicians going to adopt wholeheartedly the recommendations of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission? Are they going to improve on its recommendations? Or, are they going to dilute and fritter away the recommendations?

Are there going to be practice sessions, so that our team might be ready for the most outrageous pontifications of the UK team?

Who is doing the research into what has been adopted in the other territories, so we know which of our recommendations are mere formalities, and which others are going to take very hard and determined argument to push through?

Do we have an agreed agenda, a bottom line below which we will not venture?

Who is going to give the signal for us to walk out of the negotiations if the British are unreasonable?

What is to be the signal? Will it be a tug on the collar, or a fist pounding on the table?

All these matters have to be discussed and agreed!

This is not a joke. I am very serious. Taking part in these negotiations unprepared, like a bunch of amateurs, could be the worst betrayal of Anguilla. Taking part with a well-rehearsed team, who are all reading from the same script, could be a triumph for Anguilla.

What would you recommend I do in the circumstances in response to this invitation? Please let me have your views promptly. Although the Chief Minister’s office took a long time to invite me, they probably require a response from me pretty soon.

New NICA

Meet the Chairman. A couple of interesting things happened to me last week. Perhaps the most curious was when I met the gentleman who used to head up the company Jem Homes. Roy something. I did not catch the name. You will remember I wrote about Jem Homes on 1 March in the post I called NICA 8. That was the company that Kennedy Hodge invested US$50,000.00 of money that belonged to NICA. He made a mistake. He had really meant to invest his own money. The money was lost when Jem Homes was wound up. It was NICA’s money that was lost. Jem Homes was supposedly going to build a housing project on NICA’s land at Lockrum Estate. But, that’s another story.

The point of this post is to introduce you to the new Chairman of the Board of NICA. Yes, the upshot of the meeting was that I was offered the chairmanship of the Board of Directors of the new company that is going to replace NICA. It turns out that not only is NICA still struck off the Register of Companies. Its Board of Directors is no longer authorized. They have no authority to do anything. It seems some shareholders will be calling a meeting and appointing a new Board. Or, they might pass a resolution to wind up the company.

Chairmanship of the new company that is going to replace NICA! What new company is going to replace NICA, you ask? Well we will have to wait and see. Chairman of the Board! Sounds grand! There is only one problem with this plan. It is the shareholders who elect the Board of Directors of their company. It is the directors who decide who is their Chairman. Nobody else can offer you such a position. I am told it is all wrapped up and agreed.

Funny that not a single one of the shareholders has spoken to me about this promotion that I am being offered!

What do you think?

Health Check

Health Authority of Anguilla. On Thursday night Ras B interviewed Minister of Health Evans Macneil Rogers. I did not hear the interview myself. One of my correspondents did. This is what she wrote about it.

Last night the Minister of Health held an interview with Ras B on Heart Beat Radio. Interestingly, he did it on the condition that no calls be accepted from listeners. What is disturbing is that the Minister went on to make statements regarding the outgoing Health Authority Board and the Health Authority that demonstrate either a shameful ignorance of the purpose, structure and operations of the Authority, or another deliberate attempt by a politician to mislead the people.

The Health Authority legislation was carefully constructed as a model for future legislation regarding statutory bodies. Gordon Carnegie had many sleepless nights. He made sure that Anguilla would not make the mistakes that others had made.

The Board is required to have 7 members – one representing medical, one nursing, one business, one finance, one human resources, and two representing the public interest. The Board also has four supporting committees to advise it.

Each Committee has two members of the board as chair and deputy chair, and includes executive managers of the Authority and other private and public sector persons with the particular expertise. All of those 4 committees meet every month and report to the board on a monthly basis. The four committees are: The Patient Care and Quality Services Committee – headed by the medical member of the board included doctors from the private sector (like Dr. Paige) and doctors and senior nursing personnel from within the authority. This committee looks at the medical and patient care issues, including complaints from the public. It also worked on the diagnostics – (the public should not be deceived by the Minister's attempt to indicate that this was being ignored.) This committee provided guidance for the board on all medical matters and was headed for the first 3 years of operation by Dr. Brett Hodge, with Nurse Yvonne Rey as co-chair until the end of their term in December. It was on the recommendations of this committee that the Board implemented the diagnostic changes in the Authority.

Nurse Rey was also chairperson of the Nursing committee which advised the board on all nursing matters. When Dr. Hodge and Nurse Rey ended their term, the Minister for six months failed to appoint their replacements. In essence, he "starved" the Board of this vital expertise. For six months a board which should have 7 members was forced to operate with only 4.

The other committees were the Finance and Audit and Human Resources committees, which were set up similarly to the other committees. The board also created a Dispute and Grievance Resolution committee to assist staff who may have issues that could not be solved within the system.

The Human Resources committee assisted the human resources department with policies, recruitment and training decisions. I am appalled that the Minister told the public on radio last night displayed that the human resources department needed restructuring. This is an insult to Mrs. Meridith Gumbs, the human resources manager who literally worked day and night to ensure that the department was one of the most professionally organized in the public and private sector. The minister seems to be judging or damning the authority based on the need for customer service training, but if the truth were to be told Meridith Gumbs had several training sessions for the staff. Coincidentally, the same person that Meridith had looking after the training needs of the Authority, was the person that the minister took to study the "customer service" needs of the authority.

The Health Authority was set up to allow for input from inside and outside the Authority. The Board does not arbitrarily or high handedly make decisions. All this is public knowledge as the Authority published all this information very early in its operations. All sectors of the authority had to give quarterly accounts - The minister, the ministry and public were kept informed.

The people should know, in fact someone should tell the Minister that there is a difference between governance and operations. The board governs, the CEO and the managers carry out the established policy. The CEO does not have to go to the Board to buy a light bulb for the Operating Theatre. The empowerment of the lower levels is to cut out bureaucracy and make sure that the service is efficient. This is why Mr. Eric Reid OBE worked so hard to establish a Health Authority.

People are tired of hearing the Minister claim to be such a health professional. As a minister of government he should be looking at governance and regulation of the authority – his experience as a med tech does not give him the knowledge or experience to run the health authority or override the national health plan which was developed by health experts, health professionals and the people of Anguilla. Please tell the Minister, it is not about him, there is no room in health for pretense and self-importance.

The government needs to pay serious attention to the social development. The recent events point to that. The government should be concerned that one of the most qualified health professionals in the region, Mr Foster Rogers, is working in the Chief Minister's office and not in health – the minister did not want him – Why did Orris Proctor resign? – the minister frustrated him. Why was it such a fight to get the well-qualified Dr. Bonnie Lake to be appointed as PS Health? Why is she now sidelined by the Minister? Why are there so many proposals or plans from the Health authority and other social development departments lying unattended on the Minister's desk for a year or more? The ministry of health needs a serious check up.

Well, what do you make of this situation?

Parental Responsibility

Youth Violence. You probably read the story in the St Maarten Herald like me. Two boys severely chopped up by several other boys. They were fighting over drugs' turf. Just like in Anguilla. The boys were arrested and charged.

What interested me in the story was the bit about making the parents pay. We can’t do that in Anguilla. My boys can chop up your boys all they want. You can’t sue them for compensation because they are too young. You can’t sue me because I have not done you anything. Law can always be changed. If the law said I was responsible in certain circumstances, would you approve? What if I knew that my boys kept guns and knives at home, and I did not take them away? What if my boys hung out with a gang, and I did not forbid them? What if you had reported to me that my boys had threatened to chop up your boys, and I said that it would serve your boys right? Should society not justifiably feel that I was as much to blame as the boys once the promised chopping took place? Should I not be made to pay for the loss and damage that my negligent upbringing of my children has caused? Would I not take more care of my responsibilities if there was a strong risk that I would be made to pay? Should I not be considered to have committed an offence of my own in those circumstances? It would be the easiest law for a trained draughtsperson to prepare. She would not even have to break out in a sweat. She just has to follow the precedents that exist elsewhere.

What do you think?

Subscribing

Subscribe to email updates: A new service. I had to face it. Not every reader wants to visit the Blog every day. The weekly Sitemeter statistics said on Monday that I had an average of 225 readers each day last week. They read on average 4 different posts on each visit. That is, there are probably 1,000 readers who visit every four days, and read the latest post and three back issues. The average reader does not visit every day. There is a variety of reasons. Not everyone has their broad band turned on 24/7. Not everyone is sitting as comfortably as you at the office computer catching up on the gossip on AnguillaTalk and this Blog. Some use the office computer only for work. Others are traveling. Some have other reasons why they may not have access to their computer ever day. Yet, they would like to read the posts daily, as they go up on the Blog.

Everyone checks email at least once per day. Some, like me, check several times a day. What better way for those persons to read the daily [well nearly daily!] posts than to be able to receive them automatically by email?

So, if you feel the need, or are just adventurous, go to the bottom of the right hand column on this page. There you will find a box with “Email Subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz”. Enter your email address, and click “Submit”. Follow the simple instructions. Give yourself a password. [Note it down. You will need it if you ever want to cancel the subscription.] Fill in the “image verification process”. Click on “Subscribe me.” Check your email “inbox” for your subscription activation email. You will need to click the link in your email to start your subscription.

Happy reading! Don’t forget to send me a comment or two. On any post that piques your interest!

Second Opinion

Health Sabotage. We saw a few days ago that the entire Board of the Health Authority of Anguilla has resigned in protest at the Minister’s lack of support. They were a dedicated bunch. Their achievements are well known. The worked long hours, for a pittance. Then, the new Minister cut them off and forced them to resign. This they did en masse on 25th June. My question is, why? In matters of health, when you have bad news it is always advisable to get a second opinion. That is what I did about the crisis.

An insider has provided the following explanation. Minister Evans Macneil Rogers met the Board in place when he was appointed Minister of Health in February 2005. From the onset, it was clear that he was not in favour of the Health Authority, despite his public declarations to the contrary. He seemed to want his Ministry to have a hands-on approach as regards management of the health services. This was contrary to the very purpose of the Health Authority. Added to this, he felt the Board was Eric Reid’s Board. The members had all been appointed by Mr Reid. For some reason, this made him uncomfortable. It seemed he wanted to put his own “stamp” on the Board. He wanted to appoint the persons he preferred. He appeared to resent the fact that the Board had the power to appoint the CEO and executive managers, and not him. It was rumoured he had certain “friends” in mind for those positions. From the beginning of his term of service, he appeared to be dissatisfied with the Authority. The members of the Board held several meetings with him geared to finding out the source of his dissatisfaction. Nothing was forthcoming from him. The terms of three members of the Board expired in December 2006. Two of them indicated their willingness to be re-appointed. He did not re-appoint them. Nor did he appoint anyone else to fill their vacancies. The surviving members soldiered on. Up to the day they resigned, they operated with only four rather than the full complement of seven members.

This action of the Minister was a betrayal of the principle that health is too important to be under political control. The consultants had all recommended that there be an independent Health Authority for Anguilla. Now, all their good work has been cast aside. We are back to the old incompetent style of political control of the Health Services of Anguilla. How sad for all of us.

In better times

Ethics & Integrity

Professionals. I am really proud of Anguilla’s office professionals. On Thursday 28 June some 40 persons met at the Teachers’ Resource Centre in the Valley. They took part in an all-day seminar. They were office workers from a wide cross-section of the public and private sectors in Anguilla. They were mostly young, with a sprinkling of more experienced office administrators and management. The topic for the seminar was: The Office Professional – The Need for Ethics and Integrity. At the end of the day, participants put together a draft Code of Ethics for themselves and their fellow workers. This is it:

THE ANGUILLA ASSOCIATION OF OFFICE PROFESSIONALS

CODE OF ETHICS [1st draft]

Anguillian office professionals will adopt the Golden Rule as the basis of all our dealings with our supervisors, subordinates, colleagues, customers, clients, and the general public. We shall strive at all times in the work place to treat others as we would want to be treated. In pursuance of this goal, we adopt the following principles to guide our conduct:

1. Honesty

We know that it is a fundamental aspect of good character that we be honest in all our dealings. We know that working on building our character will engender trust and bring lasting success with people. We will be honest and above-board with all persons we come into contact with.

2. Respect

We know that good manners is the foundation of respect in dealing with others. Respect gives us dignity and builds our confidence. We shall recognise the self-worth of our colleagues and customers. We shall show, and we will expect to receive, respect from all persons we deal with in the workplace.

3. Integrity

We will demonstrate integrity in our relations with co-workers, customers, and management. We will keep our commitments. We will hold up our end of any bargain we make, even in the face of personal loss. We shall be consistent and honest in all our dealings. We shall not make rash, emotional decisions. We shall stick with the truth, even when we do not like it. We shall not take shortcuts, but will be willing to fight to do what is right. We shall not bow to others’ opinions, but will do what we know is right, even when it is unpopular. We shall not make promises we know we cannot keep. We will strive to show personal integrity in our work, at home, and in our dealings with friends and acquaintances.

4. Confidentiality

We recognise that as office professionals we are expected to show a high level of confidentiality in respect of our office duties. It will be no benefit to ourselves, our co-workers or our customers, if we carry tales about them to those who have no business to hear about it. Any information that we learn in the course of our work will remain at work.

5. Professionalism

We make a commitment to ourselves, our colleagues and our employers that we will strive to excel at our occupation. We will focus in on the needs of our businesses and of its customers. We will go the extra mile for them where necessary. We will ensure that office resources are used effectively and efficiently. We will dress appropriately for the office at all times, and we will conduct ourselves with courtesy and respect.

6. Communication

Good communication ensures a minimum of problems with others. We will not be quick to find fault with others who do not conform to the patterns and standards that we hold. We will strive to assist with the smooth operation of the organisation we work for. We will work at improving our efficiency at the job. We will do what is proper to maintain the confidence of customers and clients in our employer’s business. We will do what we can to build teamwork and better relationships at work.

7. Empathy

We all have our bad days. But, in general we recognise that to be good at our jobs and a credit to our organisation we need to strive to solve rather than to create problems. We shall work to help each other to improve our performance. We will show our colleagues that we value their contribution, and we will encourage each other as we go about our tasks. We will show care and concern for both our colleagues and our customers.

8. Trust

We recognise that to be true professionals we have to show trust in the good faith and honesty of our colleagues and customers. Trust is the foundation of all good relationships. We shall always assume the best of others, until we have good reason to behave otherwise. We shall focus on shared goals rather than on personal agendas. We will do the right thing at work, regardless of personal risk. We will listen to others with an open mind, demonstrate compassion where needed, and maintain confidence shown in us. In this way we will build the trust of our customers and colleagues in ourselves and the business for the benefit of all.

9. Accountability

Nothing helps to keep a person honest like accountability. Accountability gives teeth to our pledge to live by high ethical standards. We accept that we must be responsible for our actions. We shall accept the consequences of our actions and not try to evade and avoid responsibility. We also know that in order to live up to the standards required of us as professionals we need to ask our colleagues to help to keep us honest and responsible. We will not be unduly upset when others point out our failings, but will strive to improve our performance.

10. Transparency

We recognise that we must be transparent in all our dealings with our colleagues, management, and customers. To be otherwise will reduce the confidence that others have in us and in our employer’s business.

11. Responsibility

To be truly professional, we must be answerable for our own actions. We shall strive to develop personal discipline. We will try to know our weaknesses so that we do not allow others to exploit them. We shall be consistent in admitting to the consequences of our actions. We shall not strive to make excuses, but will act professionally at all times.

12 Impartiality

We recognise that we need to act fairly with all interests that come into contact with our work place. We shall avoid discrimination and prejudice at all times. In this way we shall build the confidence of our colleagues and our customers in the quality of our firm’s services and in the contribution that we make.

13. Tolerance

We recognise that we are not all identical in our backgrounds and characteristics. We know that our employer must serve the needs of all the public, and that we must do our share to show courtesy and professionalism to all types of persons with whom we come into contact in the course of our work.

14 Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment is any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, sexually motivated physical contact, and other verbal or physical conduct, or visual forms of harassment of a sexual nature, when submission to such conduct is either explicitly or implicitly made a term or condition of employment or is used as the basis for employment decisions, or when such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Lewd or vulgar remarks, suggestive comments, pressure for dates or sexual favours and unacceptable physical contact are examples of what can constitute harassment. We recognise that a harmonious and productive working relationship is essential in the work place. We shall do what we must to foster harmonious and productive working relationships that encourage mutual employee respect. We recognise that in a few cases there is a degree of sexual harassment in the workplace that has to be faced up to and overcome. We shall not ourselves engage in sexual harassment of our juniors, nor shall we accept it from our seniors.

[28 June 2007 Seminar - The Office Professional: The Need for Ethics and Integrity]

We all got certificates. Clicking on the photo will enlarge it.

What is extraordinary about this document is that it is the product of clerical officers, secretaries, and office administrators who are mainly young persons. Would it not be wonderful if we could get our legislators and executive in government to do a similar thing? Perhaps, members of the House of Assembly and of Executive Council are above ethics and integrity!

Slum Development

Slum at Mariners. Whatever happened to Anguilla? First, I learn about our importation and use of slave labour. Human trafficking was not enough. Now, we have to turn a derelict hotel into Anguilla’s first slum?

The dolphin prison people imported Mexican slaves into Anguilla to relocate their pens and animals from Barnes Bay to Sandy Ground. Where to house them? Why, in the abandoned hotel at Sandy Ground, of course. The fact that the buildings are rat holes, there is no electricity or water, no sewage disposal, no kitchen facilities, are not a problem. It is not as if we have any health regulations in Anguilla. Here, there is no one with the authority or credibility to insist that minimum standards are maintained. Besides, they are Mexicans, hardly human beings at all. So, have a look at the photos below. This is how we allow their employers to house and maintain them. Click on any photo to see the scene in its full glory.

Great going, Anguilla. Chalk up another victory for crass profits over humanity. Anguilla leads the way again.