It’s no surprise:  this year’s Bermuda census includes a whopping list of sensitive personal questions ranging from pay levels to education to health conditions … and even branching off into weird categories such as use of alternative energy.  Simply put:  many people do not trust our Government to have this much detail of their lives in one place.

By comparison, the US census (also taking place this year) contains only 10 basic questions dealing with number of persons in the household, home ownership, age, race, and national origin.  This encourages people to promptly submit the information – and ensures that Government can quickly tabulate it.

Under his leadership, Mr. Lister declared, we will be “dusting off the welcome mat and starting over”.

Ms. Cox declared: “What the country needs is someone who is going to help heal some of the divisions … We need to talk about hot issues without a lot of the drama.”

Mr. Butler, meanwhile, vowed to build a Bermuda “where everyone is included” …

But the important point is this: All three candidates clearly and unequivocally identified the key failing of the last administration was one of tone: It failed to consult, to respect, or even appear to like, a huge proportion of the people it was meant to serve.

It confused firm and decisive government for government that was often stubborn and rude. Critics often became enemies or racists, rather than fellow-Bermudians who deserved to be reasoned with.

Yup.  Once they have established their unEwartness, I hope they will talk about how to deal with Bermuda’s financial problems (aka realigning Government’s expenditures with its revenues).

Here’s my opinion:  huge resources have been applied to “package” Dr. Brown as a successful leader … both to Bermudians but even more to his social circles in the United States.  I believe that many decisions and expenditures have little to do with Bermuda’s prosperity, and everything to do with the Premier’s personal ambitions.

Successful?  Look at the facts:

• Our community is more divided- and ANGRY – than in decades.  In so many of his actions and appointments, one has to ask “is the Premier so out of touch with Bermuda, or did he intend to be divisive?”
  
• Our economy is a mess.  Our reputation is tattered.
  
• Government expenditures are a mess.  The swollen civil service is adrift.
• The public education system remains a blight on the lives of many young people.
  
• We have in a few short years acquired a crippling national debt – with little to show for it.
  
• So far in 2010 in Bermuda, seven people have been murdered and at least 19 people wounded.  Wow.
  

No spin can override these facts.  In my opinion, Dr. Brown is a failed leader whose tenure has been a disaster for Bermuda.

In my view, under Dr. Brown’s leadership, both the PLP and Bermuda have been badly damaged.  Our collective future has been threatened.

So, I hope the Doc’s next trough is deep and far far away.  Now, it’s time to clean house.

I have great difficulty getting excited about Paula Cox as a potential Premier, as she has been an integral part of Bermuda’s unsustainable profligacy over the past few years.

One of the early controversial events was the famous lunch for the Premier in the US which many alleged was a “pay to play” fundraiser held for investment managers interested in doing business with the Bermudian pension system.  The murkiness surrounding the event helped define the “unethical but possibly not illegal” phrase that we’ve gotten so used to hearing.

Well, here’s some clarity on the matter.  The American SEC has firmly banned “pay to play”.  It is illegal.

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is adopting a new rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 that prohibits an investment adviser from providing advisory services for compensation to a government client for two years after the adviser or certain of its executives or employees make a contribution to certain elected officials or candidates. The new rule also prohibits an adviser from providing or agreeing to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any third party for a solicitation of advisory business from any government entity on behalf of such adviser, unless such third parties are registered broker-dealers or registered investment advisers, in each case themselves subject to pay to play restrictions. Additionally, the new rule prevents an adviser from soliciting from others, or coordinating, contributions to certain elected officials or candidates or payments to political parties where the adviser is providing or seeking government business. The Commission also is adopting rule amendments that require a registered adviser to maintain certain records of the political contributions made by the adviser or certain of its executives or employees. The new rule and rule amendments address “pay to play” practices by investment advisers.

It is assumed that it will be broadly supported.   But the beauty is in the details.  The PATI law does not dictate an implementation schedule.  It should, particularly given the long amount of time it took us to get this far.  The law should be effective within a year … not the 3-5 timeframe we’ve sometimes heard bandied about.

You see, it would be difficult for Government simply take them over, both from a public opinion perspective and a practical perspective.  So, here’s how I see it unfolding:

1. If passed the law will cripple the Corporation of Hamilton by gutting its revenues (by removing tax base and increasing the taxes they must pay) and ability to develop its way out of the shortfall.  Currently the Corporation may define its own City limits.  Under the proposed act, that power becomes Government’s.
2. The PLP may be able to wiggle this through the House, but are less certain to get it through the more balanced Senate.  So, they have called this a “money bill” which only needs approval from the House.
3. The Corporation of Hamilton will have only two choices in its predicament:  to raise taxes or to cut services.  Either would eventually undermine its popularity.
4. The Corporation is already audited for its own purposes.  However the new Government stipulated audit will give them much information they need about the city – and will highlight the growing gap in revenues and expenditures.
5. Today the Corporation is independent.  If the proposed law is passed, it clearly makes the Corporation subordinate to a Cabinet minister who has the ability, under Section 12, to amend the Act or repeal other laws (subject to affirmative resolution).  The Minister can then use the deteriorating financial situation as cause to complete the full take over of the city.

This takeover is being couched in the usual “us vs them” rhetoric that dooms most decision making in Bermuda.  This is wrong.  Each time we allow it to happen it lets Government off the hook from acting with responsibility and accountability.  And each time, we go deeper into clutches of the Forty Thieves’ cave.

Remember the fact:  the Corporation of Hamilton proposed a broad set of reforms to Government back in 2008.  The PLP have ignored them.

Reform in Bermuda’s municipal corporations is possible without a takeover.  It is possible without the financial disruption and deepening distrust that this act will cause.  This act is, in fact, anti reform.

Bermuda today is a very divided place.

On a side note:  the international sector this week is aghast at the machinations surrounding the City as well as the intimidating emails to employers of citizens who support the City.  Another chip in the wall.

Then what the hell is ImmiMin David Burch doing having letters written to local employers, quizzing the political opinions expressed by their Bermudian employees?

That’s called intimidation.  It is a completely unacceptable violation of constitutionally protected freedom of expression.

“no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, and for the purposes of this sec­tion the said freedom includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference”

In my opinion, it is another sign the current leadership are a reincarnation of the Forty Thieves.

The Bermuda Government and the Human Rights Commission must investigate this with alacrity – and if the claims are true, they must strongly rebuke both the Minister and the civil servant for violating these individuals’ right to free speech.

Help Save Bermuda’s City from hundreds of years of cronyism – Say yes to Government’s Municipal reform.  Emancipation Day is almost upon us. Help Government erase the final vestiges of pre-emancipation Bermuda.

A kind reader has supplied the Municipalities Reform Act 2010 law, which … as usual … Government has not made readily available to the public.  Information is power, and they seem to want to retain both for the insiders.  Or cronies as the case may be.

I find the audit requirement of the law to be a hoot.  It’s an admission that Government has no idea what the Corporation owns or does.  They are not looking for accountability … they are looking for help at figuring out what it takes to run a city.  The C of H is already audited;  the documents are here.  Unlike Government, it’s a clean audit.

In my opinion, this is not reform, it is a mugging.  It’s not emancipation, it’s a consolidation of power.

This chaotic draft law should be shelved.  The my$teriou$ consultant report should be made public.  A proper public consultation on reform should be started.

The risks of this plan are huge:  it kills the City of Hamilton’s revenue (endangering jobs) and takes away the resources that are at the centre of plans to redevelop the city (Par-La-Ville and Albouys Point).  And for what?  Or for whom?

And Bermudians would be very foolish to allow this plan to be passed through Parliament, in a rush, in the dark of night.  It’s not reform.  It feels like a power play by the New Forty Thieves.

As no public consultation has been held on the proposed hostile takeover, The Corporation of Hamilton has sent a briefing to all members of Parliament with their side of the story.  I copy it here for the Internet to see (any typos are my own).  The original, with supporting documents, may be found here.  Unfortunately, the Brown/DeSilva Takeover Bill is not easily available to the public.

** There will be a rally this Friday at Noon at City Hall **

TO: MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

THE CORPORATION OF HAMILTON’S PRESENTATION TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT CONCERNING THE PROPOSED MUNICIPALITIES REFORM ACT 2010

Brief History of the Corporation

1. Parliament by the Hamilton Act 1793 created the Corporation of Hamilton much in the same way that self governing towns and cities in other democratic countries came into existence.

2. The Corporation is an elected body and its powers are governed by the Municipalities Act 1923. The Corporation has no power to determine, extend or amend voting rights. Those powers have always vested with Parliament, but those powers have been exercised sparingly over the centuries.

3. The City of Hamilton was established to develop trade in the centre of the Islands and to service the needs of the inhabitants of the area. Parliament gave voting rights to merchants to elect a Mayor and Council Members.

4. In expectation of the creation of the Hamilton Act 1793, the original land that comprised the City was purchased and then sold to interested locals by several public auctions under the instructions of a commission appointed by the Governor. Once founded the Corporation continued to purchase properties needed to develop the City infrastructure and services. The purchased property has always been used for the benefit of people that live in, work in or visit the City. It would be wrong and a revision of history to suggest that the property owned by the Corporation was a gift from Parliament.

5. In 1923, Parliament extended voting rights to one resident per household within the boundaries of the City. Although the predominant character of the City was that of a business centre in 1923, people were starting to live within the boundaries of the City and Parliament considered it appropriate to extend the vote to them.

The Unexpected Cabinet Plan to Take Over ALL City Operations and Services

6. The PLP have historically encouraged democratization and fair public participation through voter reform in Island wide elections, Parish Councils and in the Corporations.

7. In 2009, Cabinet proposed abolishing elected City government and transferring all city operations and functions to the Bermuda Government. This was Cabinet’s definition of voter reform and democratization.

8. On 26 June 2009, under the leadership of Premier Brown, the Bermuda Government formally announced that it intended to repeal the Municipalities Act 1923 and transfer all operations of the municipalities of Bermuda into relevant Government departments, and thereafter in January 2010 the Government appointed a group of foreign led Consultants for the express purpose of overseeing, managing and implementing the integration of the municipalities of Bermuda into the Government within a year. The foreign consultants’ expertise is focused on using public assets for the benefit of private business people with the theory that the public will eventually benefit.

9. Cabinet unfortunately confused the public early on by describing their plan as reform and democratization of City Govemment even though in truth their plan called for the abolishment of City elections and City government. When the Corporation asked Cabinet to make it clear what their true intentions were, Minister Roban refused to provide clarification.

10. Cabinet authorized the expenditure of $800,000 to retain foreign led consultants to create a step by step plan for taking control of City functions and to end City elected government, but the public were led to believe that Cabinet was attempting to make the City more democratic.

11. The Corporation met briefly with Cabinet’s foreign consultants on two occasions. The first meeting which lasted for half an hour occurred on 19 January 2010 and was to give the Consultants an opportunity to 2 introduce themselves. The second meeting was on 9 February 2010 and was in lieu of an informal lunch that the Consultants had suggested. The meeting lasted for just over an hour with a substantial amount of time being taken up trying unsuccessfully to determine exactly what the Consultants’ mandate was. On both occasions the Consultants made confusing representations about what they were actually hired to do because Minister Roban had himself clouded the issue by characterizing the takeover plan as a reform effort. Cabinet thought that the Corporation should have shown the Consultants more respect, but it was plain to the Corporation that the Consultants were not hired to talk about true voter reform or democratization of cities, but were hired to end City government in Bermuda.

Imagine if in the USA, the Massachusetts State Government sought to take over the City of Boston and brought in foreign consultants to help with the takeover. When faced with those inconceivable circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the Corporation was compelled to fight for true voter reform and the reaffirmation of the fundamental principle that City and town government provides a vital platform for community participation.

Participation fosters commitment and without commitment (the sense that your efforts matter and that you have a voice) a town, a city, a country is doomed.

The Corporation’s Proposal would have encouraged far greater community involvement

12. In 2009, the Corporation presented comprehensive recommendations to Cabinet including the recommendation that voting be extended to all Bermudian residents (18 years and older) who live in the City. The Corporation also recommended the retention of the business vote given the strong commercial nature of the City and the desirability of encouraging participation in the affairs of the City from all stakeholders. The philosophy was simple and fair: if you pay City taxes you should have the right to vote, and participation in a small community should be encouraged at every level. This concept is not unique or antiquated and operates in much bigger cities. The City of London, after a recent country wide Labour Government review, maintains a similar franchise model.

Conversely, jurisdictions that have experimented with eliminating the business vote have unintentionally created an environment that discourages investment generally and particularly discourages the development and viability of small businesses in cities and towns (see: the April 2010 Submissions by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to British Columbia’s Local Government Elections Task Force – www.Cfib.ca). The Corporation is and always has been open to endorsing any better concept of voting provided that it encourages community involvement by all stakeholders, but to date Cabinet has not indicated that it wishes to discuss or explore options. The Corporation’s proposal would have greatly expanded the franchise with the weight of any future vote being in the hands of residents.

Encouraging greater participation in the affairs of the City by the community is considered a universally desirable goal.

13. Cabinet has never provided the Corporation with any substantive response to the recommendations. The Corporation has no reason to believe that Cabinet or its consultants carried out any study on how voting rights are addressed in other jurisdictions; how those cities in terms of residential and business bases compare to the City of Hamilton; and the extent to which the residential population of the City of Hamilton and other cities encompass those persons who own and operate businesses in the city so as to ensure that such commercial interests are capable of being represented in City government. If such studies were done then the public should be provided with this information so that they can satisfy themselves that the various interests that make up a vibrant City will have a voice in City government.

14. In 2010 the Corporation commenced a public awareness campaign to ensure that the public was aware that Cabinet’s true intention was to dismantle the City government and use the City’s assets and revenues for risky ventures which Bermudian tax payers could ill afford with a Government deficit approaching a billion dollars and climbing. The Corporation also highlighted its strong financial position and the need to ensure that a successful, self-governing City is not dismantled or harmed by Cabinet’s ambition to control every aspect of life in Bermuda.

15. The Corporation calls upon Cabinet to release the secret Consultants’ report to the public and let the public see for itself the background behind this Bill. Any vote on the Bill ought to be done in the full light 4 of day with all Members of Parliament, the Senate and the Public knowing what transpired between Cabinet and the foreign consultants and what is inside the $800,000 Report.

16. Since 2009, the Corporation has invited Cabinet to endorse a cooperative, joint effort approach in regard to reforming the Municipalities Act, but this has been rejected. On 1 June 2010, the Corporation asked Cabinet again to consider a cooperative approach on reform with the aim of introducing legislation that would have wide public support. The Corporation’s approach was met with silence.

17. Throughout 2010, various organizations have carried out independent polls using Bermudian Professional polling companies. All polls report that the Public is strongly against Cabinet’s takeover bid. In the most recent Poll conducted in June 2010, 82% of Bermudians were against the takeover bid. Press polls put the figure even higher. The Bill Does Not Strengthen the City But Weakens the City

18. In the face of overwhelming public opposition to Cabinet’s plan, Cabinet nonetheless produces a Bill that:

(i) Discourages c.ommunity participation by taking away voting rights from Bermudian business owners, but nonetheless requires them to pay the lion’s share of City taxes. Taxation without representation is fundamentally wrong. Minister DeSilva’s Bill results in approximately a 50% reduction in who can participate in City government. By contrast, the Corporation’s reform plan expands the franchise to allow more people to vote and participate. The Minister’s plan sets the City up for failure because his view of voter reform utterly fails to give a voice to all the stakeholders.

(ii) Creates an unfair and awkward voting structure where the vote is limited to City residents but anyone in Bermuda can run for City government even if they have no interest or real connection to the City. Ironically, you can run for election and live outside the City but you cannot cast a vote. Apparently, this is Minister DeSilva’s answer to eliminating the business vote. The right to vote in the election process should be a prerequisite to the right to run for office. If it is the political will of the people that business representatives should be denied the vote (we seriously doubt that it is), then at the very least, the voting structure should allow any Bermudian (18 years or older) to vote and run in City elections provided that they either live or work in the City. That ensures that all people that have a real connection to the City have a say in how the City runs. It encourages community participation.

(iii) Sets the City up for financial failure, job losses at the Corporation and reduction in services by significantly reducing the City’s revenue base. If the Bill passes, the Corporation’s power to charge a fee for anyone tying up their ship to the Corporation’s dock facilities is taken away even though the Corporation owns the docks. This alone results in a 32% reduction in City revenues and of course raises serious concerns that the Bill breaches Bermuda’s Constitution. Is the Corporation simply supposed to let cruise ships and cargo ships use its property for free? It is apparent that the secret Consultants’ Report advised Cabinet that one way to start taking over the City is to take away the Corporation’s revenue base on the docks and create a Port Authority who could then grab and funnel that revenue to the Government. The rationale used is that Port Authorities are common place in other jurisdictions. But what Minister DeSilva does not tell the Public is that those Port Authorities actually own the docks they administer and with ownership comes the right (constitutionally protected) to charge ships for usage. This explains why the Bill allows WEDCO to continue charging cruise ships for use of the new docks in Dockyard but no serious argument is advanced by the Minister which explains why both Corporations are now being discriminated against and denied this same right. Minister DeSilva does not tell the public that it is common place for Municipal governments such as the Corporation to operate their own docks and charge ships for the use of those docks. The City of New York owns the Manhattan Passenger Cruise Ship Terminal and charges cruise ships for the use. The City of Fort Lauderdale owns and charges for the use of its port as does Richmond City, the City of Long Beach and Philadelphia. These are but a few of countless examples. One only has to spend half an hour on the internet to appreciate that Minister DeSilva’s modernization argument for taking away revenue from the Corporation is without any substance. His unconstitutional plan is about strangling the City financially, grabbing its assets and taking it over.

(iv) Discourages participation in City government as no one devotes time and energy to any venture if the fruits of their labour are arbitrarily taken. The Corporation’s assets and revenue base is an easy target for a Cabinet that has emptied the public accounts and run up a billion dollar debt. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is, however, not a wise Government policy for Bermuda and will only lead to further instability and worry. The Corporation works and it works well. Every Member of Parliament must ask why on earth would anyone take a thriving public institution and remove its revenue basis. To what end?

(v) Erodes the Corporation’s revenue base by shrinking the existing boundaries of the City without any explanation whatsoever. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Cabinet wants to take for itself the tax revenues and opportunities that previously would have gone towards providing city services. The Bill is silent on who is going to provide services to the carved out pieces of the city and at what cost. The Corporation is not going to provide these services to the many businesses in the area for free. The Bill will create tremendous uncertainty for these businesses as they now have to wonder who will collect their garbage and at what cost, who is going to keep their streets clean, and will they be allowed to maintain their connection to the Corporation’s sewage infrastructure and at what cost? In an unprecedented economic downturn it is difficult to understand why Cabinet has decided to create such uncertainty and why it is tampering with a City that works well.

(vi) Significantly increases City expenses by requiring the City to now pay Government land tax. Public institutions are not generally taxed because such institutions are providing public services. Government does not pay any city taxes to the Corporation on any of the many Government buildings located within the City.

(vii) Erodes the historical political independence of the City (a common if not universal feature of all great cities) and seeks to give the newly created Minister responsible for Municipalities extraordinary powers oiler the Municipalities. In substance, Cabinet appears to be empire building and seeking to gain control over the Municipalities in a way that is inconsistent with all other democracies. The extraordinary. powers that are being given to this Minister also highlights how many unexplained gaps there are in the legislation that either have not been disclosed to the public or surprisingly have not been worked out. It is hard to believe that $800k of the tax payers’ money has resulted in a Bill that leaves more questions unanswered than answered.

19. Minister Roban told the public that the Bill would give effect to the Consultants’ Report. The Consultants were specifically hired at considerable cost to advise Cabinet on how to takeover City operations and services. Cabinet wants to keep this Report secret. Minister DeSilva, on Friday 16 July 2010, suggested that the Bill is not a take over Bill, but is simply intended to modernize City and Town government. If that is true, then there cannot be anything controversial or secret about the Report. We urge Members of Parliament to call for the immediate release of the Report so that the intent of this Bill can be properly and openly evaluated by all Bermudians.

Considerations

20. The Corporation respectfully asks each Member of Parliament to have regard to the following considerations before exercising your vote:

(i) Give consideration to the importance of self governing cities and towns in a democracy;

(ii) Give consideration to the value of encouraging community participation by anyone who has a real interest in their town or city;

(iii) Give consideration to the fact that in poll after poll, the Bermudian people overwhelmingly oppose this govemment takeover – by a margin of 82% in the most recent poll;

(iv) Will this Bill bring Bermudians together, push them apart, encourage them to take an interest in the City or disengage;

(v) Does the voting component of the Bill fairly capture everyone who has a real stake in the well-being of the City;

(vi) Having regard to the subject matter, namely the future of Bermuda’s only City, was the public adequately consulted before the introduction of the Bill;

(vii) Were any reports or studies carried out and, if so, was the public given access to this information or was the information kept from them;

(viii) Consider whether what is being proposed to be done to the City would be done in any other democracy;

(ix) Should a Bill that will profoundly determine the fate of a City be the subject of greater debate or has sufficient time been allotted, and is the subject matter the type where the party whip should be applied or should this be a vote of conscience;

(x) Does the Bill weaken or strengthen the financial integrity of the City and the City’s ability to provide dependable services; (xi) Is the Bill likely to increase or decrease the national debt;

(xii) Does the language of the Bill clearly inform the public what goal or objective is being pursued or does the Bill raise more questions than it answers. The Corporation respectfully asks Parliament to vote against this Bill or defer it for further public consultation and consideration. The Bill is presented without sufficient or any public input and no input from the two Corporations. The Corporation believes that the best way forward is for the Corporation and Government representatives to work together, with ample opportunity for public input, and do their best over the Summer recess to reach a consensus on true voter reform and any other issues of mutual interest. Clearly, there is the need for real dialogue on the serious ramifications of what is currently being proposed.

Thank you for considering this presentation. Copies of all previous Govemment announcements, correspondence between Cabinet and the Corporation and press reports can be found on the Corporation’s Save Our City Website at www.SaveOurCityBermuda.org.

CORPORATION OF HAMILTON

19 July 2010

I would like to remind you that back in 2008, Government said that a “total income tax” might be required to fund FutureCare.

And let that thought linger …

One has to wonder if this is about reform at all.  I wonder if the costly advice was really about how to slide through the takeover, rather than how genuine reform might be achieved.  That theory is certainly supported by the draft law:  it’s clear to me there is little public support for taking over the corporations, and the law seems to seek to crush them financially as an alternative.  Very tricky … but we’ve come to expect that, haven’t we?

It is being shoved through late in the Parliamentary session where, through poor planning, there are so many backlogged bills that they will need to add extra meetings next week.

Finally, let’s question whose priorities are running this country.  The takeover was a late entrant in Dr. Brown’s destructathon.  It gets bullied through like the proverbial shit through a goose.

By contrast, PATI has been an official goal of the PLP for a decade – one that I strongly support and applaud.  The law is written, many consultations have occurred, we’re ready to rock.  But apparently, yet again, there’s no time for it in this Parliamentary session.  They want to claim it without actually having it.  No, there are other prioritie$.

The new forty thieves are at work.