The Tribune

By TANEKA THOMPSON

Tribune News Editor

tmthompson@tribunemedia.net

THE refusal of Algernon Allen and Cynthia “Mother” Pratt to appear before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) as the group continues its probe into Urban Renewal 2.0 is a slap in the face to democracy and the Bahamian people.

The Urban Renewal co-chairs have effectively said that they do not respect the democratic process and appear to not want to be held accountable, or promote transparency in the expenditure of public funds.

As former House Speaker Alvin Smith put it to Insight yesterday, the co-chairs’ snub of the PAC was “egregious” and showed “contempt” towards the committee.

Judging from the reaction on social media, many Bahamians were appalled at the co-chairs’ response to Auditor General Terrance Bastian’s probe into Urban Renewal and its Small Homes Repair (SHR) programme.

A day after the contents from the auditor’s SHR investigation were published in The Nassau Guardian, Mr Allen and Mrs Pratt held a press conference, with Urban Renewal officials and contractors in tow, to refute and denounce the scathing findings.

Mrs Pratt and Mr Allen immediately went on the defensive, perceiving the audit as a personal attack on their integrity, character and commitment to service.

Mr Allen questioned the auditor’s motives, suggesting that he saw the investigation as a political witch-hunt.

“Never before in my life has my integrity been questioned,” Mrs Pratt said last week. “Urban Renewal is my life. I’ve been involved with Urban Renewal before it was named Urban Renewal. If there are bad apples in Urban Renewal then we weed them out. But an audit report ought to dictate our weaknesses and our strengths and tell us what we need to do to strengthen one part or what we need to get rid of, but not to send scathing remarks as though it’s no good. The devil is a liar.”

Mr Allen said: “I am of the firm view that the Auditor General has failed to appreciate the philosophy of Urban Renewal; more specifically, the philosophy and policy of the Small Home Repairs project, thus making the erroneous statements in his audit report. Despite assurances to review, amend and correct the report, he has failed to address errors.”

What upset many observers is that the co-chairs’ response was indicative of the mentality that many public officers and politicians have. Instead of understanding that they are doing the people’s work, spending the people’s money and are ultimately accountable to us, they bristle and foam at the mouth whenever anyone suggests that they might not be doing their jobs properly.

On Wednesday, the co-chairs took their angst a step further and advised the PAC in writing that not only would they not appear before the committee as scheduled last Thursday, but refused to attend any further meetings until the audit is off the table of discussion.

In the correspondence, the co-chairs said the letters from the PAC requesting their attendance had arrived at the Urban Renewal office on Tuesday afternoon. They said the notice was not reasonable, citing Mr Allen’s birthday celebrations last Thursday and Mrs Pratt’s inability to attend due to her need to travel for medical consultation and convalescence.

However, the letter went on to say that another reason was that “it is clear to us that the purported report of the Auditor General will necessarily be within the focus of the Public Accounts Committee”. They refused to appear before the PAC at a later date if the audit, which they claim has not gone through proper parliamentary procedure, remains a topic of questioning.

But while Mr Allen did not appear before the PAC on Thursday, he was present for the opening of the Marjorie Davis Institute for Special Education at the former grounds of Our Lady’s Catholic School on Deveaux Street.

He was figuratively thumbing his nose at the committee, showing that he did not respect the group’s authority or the work it is trying to do.

It is one thing to disagree with the findings of a particular audit. It is another thing entirely to break rank from the established order of doing things simply because your feelings or pride were hurt.

If the co-chairs have nothing to hide and do not believe the auditor’s findings to be accurate, what is stopping them from appearing before the committee to give a formal rebuttal?

It is the people’s right to know exactly how their money is being spent. Mr Allen and Mrs Pratt have an obligation to appear before the PAC and respond to their questions, not in a hostile, volatile way but as humble servants of the people.

Their advisors from the governing party should do the right thing and encourage Mr Allen and Mrs Pratt to set aside their bruised egos and let the established procedure to take place.

However it is unlikely that this will happen. While in opposition, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) used the PAC to investigate the government’s New Providence Road Improvement Project (NPRIP). The PAC found that the project had cost overruns in the tens of millions, among a litany of other issues.

That committee also relied on findings from the Auditor General to formulate the basis of its final reports to the House of Assembly.

The narrative spun by the PAC of bad management and overspending in the NPRIP was used by the PLP as an election campaign tactic against the Free National Movement. The PAC’s findings brought a lot of pertinent and worrisome information about the controversial road project to light, and the then-opposition was able to use this to its political advantage.

But while some findings can by used to the benefit of politicians, the PAC is not a mechanism of the Official Opposition. It is a parliamentary committee, whose mandate is to maintain oversight of the government’s financial matters.

“Parliament agrees to the funds allocated to every government ministry, Parliament does that,” Mr Smith, who served as speaker of the House from 2007-2012 said. “The Public Accounts Committee is a parliamentary committee appointed by Parliament, to oversee the funds that it has given approval to be spent on particular items and with certain guidelines.

“They are only doing what Parliament has asked them to do, to oversee the funds that Parliament has approved.”

Under the Powers and Privileges (Senate and House of Assembly) Act, the Speaker of the House of Assembly can issue a court summons to make a witness appear before a Parliament committee.

While PAC Chairman Hubert Chipman has indicated he is prepared to take it that far, it is unclear when, or if, this will happen.

While this drama unfolds, Prime Minister Perry Christie has been uncharacteristically silent. At his scheduled events over the past few weeks, he has shied away from taking questions from the press, choosing only to give exclusive interviews to the state broadcaster.

On Thursday, after giving a speech at the opening of a new school, Mr Christie again avoided the media. The press corps waited nearly half an hour, hoping to have an audience with the Prime Minister, only to be ignored as he shook hands, took pictures and went on a tour of the school.

Reporters gathered near his car, ready to field questions. Mr Christie, I am told, jumped in the other side and shouted that he was late for a meeting.

Mr Christie or his advisers might feel that the best damage control for the multitude of scandals in this administration is to bury his head in the sand until the problems go away.

However this evasiveness and lack of response on such pertinent national issues only serves to magnify the problems that are plaguing his Cabinet. It shows that no one appears to want to handle the tough questions; instead they are more comfortable foisting the blame for any missteps on “gotcha” journalism or propaganda from the opposition.

Meanwhile, the public is judging the government on the way it handles the obstacles and blunders with which it has been dogged since the general election.

What do you think? Email comments to tmthompson@tribunemedia.net.