The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation’s (BCCEC() outgoing chairman has questioned the “unclear merits” of creating a separate body to co-ordinate activities between all Chambers, as he moved to “reconcile” differences with his Grand Bahama counterparts.

Chester Cooper, in a May 12 letter to Grand Bahama Chamber president, Barry Malcolm, responded to the latter body’s concerns over the structure of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that the BCCEC and Family Island Chambers all signed up to earlier this week.

As revealed exclusively by Tribune Business, the Grand Bahama Chamber was the sole ‘hold out’ from the signing, and Mr Cooper moved quickly to ‘bridge the gap’ by suggesting that a BCCEC delegation meet with the former’s Board to allay any concerns.

“The draft MoU was intended in good faith not to re-invent the wheel or unnecessarily detract from the work of the Chamber, but rather to enhance the working relationship of Chambers across the Bahamas and solidify the foundation of co-operation,” Mr Cooper wrote in a letter sent just days before he demitted the chairman’s post after a two-year term.”

Mr Cooper added that talks on the MoU, which were held earlier this year at the National Conclave of Chambers, had “reaffirmed” both the Grand Bahama Chamber and Family Island Chambers would continue to “advocate for issues unique to their respective islands”.

Tribune Business previously reported that the Grand Bahama Chamber of Commerce has reservations about the proposed structure of the agreement,

A source close to the matter said: “We support the National Chambers, but feel it needs to be structured properly”, and believes the issue needs ‘further consideration”.

An April 25, 2014, letter signed by Mr Malcolm and sent to Mr Cooper, said that while the Grand Bahama Chamber of Commerce saw “great opportunity for a national co-ordinating body”, the initiative “requires that a firm and transparent foundation be built from which it will grow”.

And it added that “before we are prepared to proceed further”, the Grand Bahama Chamber was recommending four amendments to the MoU.

These included creating a separate body to the BCCEC “to perform the umbrella function of co-ordinating the individual island Chambers”, as changing the former’s name might cause confusion.

The Grand Bahama Chamber also took issue with the BCCEC describing itself as “the pre-emminent organisation to speak on behalf of all the sectors of domestic and international business throughout the Bahamas”, arguing that it did not represent “all the Bahamas” and had “no claim as the umbrella for the individual island Chambers”.

The Grand Bahama Chamber also wants the Board of the proposed Bahamas National Chamber Association to be composed from the presidents of individual island Chambers, with officers elected from among Board members.

Responding to the issues raised buy his counterpart Chamber, Mr Cooper rejected the notion of creating a co-ordinating body separate from the BCCEC.

“All Chambers recognise the maxim of ‘strength in numbers’, and thus the importance of collaboration on national and international issues on behalf of the private sector,” he wrote.

“The merits, therefore, of an additional organisation with added costs and bureaucracy are not clear to me at this time.”

As for the Grand Bahama Chamber taking issue with the BCCEC’s claim to represent “all the Bahamas”, Mr Cooper replied: “The BCCEC advocates for national issues, as well as issues unique to New Providence.

“The BCCEC represents the Bahamas at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). We have a seat on the World Chambers Federation Council, as well as a seat on the ICC’s International Court of Arbitration. The National Committee of the ICC will be established shortly with representation from all affiliate Chambers.

“These are initiatives that will accrue benefits to all chambers in The Bahamas by virtue of their affiliate status with the BCCEC.”

Mr Cooper said it was “unfortunate” that Mr Malcolm was not present at the National Conclave, and said the MoU had been “ventilated extensively” in discussions where a Grand Bahama Chamber representative was present.

“The terms of the MoU were agreed-in-principle by the entire delegation, with the GB Chamber indicating their desire to consult with their chairman,” Mr Cooper added.

“I recommend that a delegation of the BCCEC visit with the entire Board of the Grand Bahama Chamber to discuss the above and whatever remaining legacy concerns there may be.

“The work of the Chambers is critical to national development and the success of the Bahamas. It is important, therefore, that we reconcile whatever ‘differences’ remain so as not to detract from the important work of Chambers across the Bahamas.”

One source, familiar with the Grand Bahama Chamber’s concerns, said the real issue was that the body did not want to “subjugate itself to Nassau” on issues that were Grand Bahama or Freeport specific.

The concern was that the Government might perceive that it just needed to deal with the Chamber in Nassau on Freeport-related matters, and could thus either ignore or sweep aside Grand Bahama’s business community.

“The GB Chamber has no interest in subordinating itself under Nassau,” the source said. “Freeport’s and Nassau’s agendas often conflict. They [Nassau] don’t have our arguments, they don’t have our fights.”