The Tribune

ALTHOUGH Bahamians have been given an assurance that there will be no politics in hurricane rebuilding, already complaints are starting to come in that — at least on Andros — the PLP are now first in line.

FNM Leader Dr Hubert Minnis, who was in Lowe Sound yesterday, said residents were complaining that the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), was being accused of giving “preferential treatment” to PLP supporters, leaving everyone else “out in the cold”.

There were also complaints that NEMA was only purchasing food for distribution from store owners who support the government.

Having promised that there will be no politics in hurricane relief, it is hoped that those in charge will investigate and, if the accusations are found to be true, will take immediate action to bring the offenders in check.

There is still tremendous unease about how government’s $150m loan is going to be supervised so that the funds will be used wisely and solely for the reasons for which the money was borrowed.

Few persons seem happy about the Prime Minister’s appointment of Labour Minister Shane Gibson as national coordinator to oversee the restoration work to be done in the wake of Matthew. Despite Mr Gibson’s declaration that he will not “rest until everyone gets the help they need in a timely fashion, regardless of their political preference,” few seem convinced. Such slippery words glide easily over a politician’s tongue and so Mr Gibson’s tenure will be closely watched.

Prime Minister Christie explained that his reason for appointing Mr Gibson was because of the speed with which he completed restoration work after previous storms. This seems a superficial yardstick to use for such a serious appointment. More than speed will be needed in this restoration exercise.

We recall shortly after the 2012 election when on the pretext of clearing up overgrown areas in residential areas to destroy criminals’ hideouts, large areas of land were being cleared, and hefty bills were being submitted for unsupervised work. It was all in the name of Urban Renewal - it was this exercise that gave Urban Renewal an unhealthy reputation. However, the plan became unstuck in the Mount Vernon area, where there was trespass on private land and beautiful trees were being chopped down. We use the word “chopped” because there was no careful trimming, but just ruthless desecration, leaving a section of Mr Vernon looking like a wasteland. When trespass was raised it was claimed that the slashers and choppers only went on private land with written permission from the police. This excuse fell to pieces when they wandered up into the Camperdown area with their tractors, the owner asked to see their police permission. Unable to produce it they were ordered off the land or risk prosecution. Not only was there no management of their work, but it quickly became obvious that it was a “thank you” gesture to certain PLP supporters who had voted the PLP government into power just two months earlier.

But the real icing on the cake came when a lone voice from a prison cell contacted The Tribune to find out if we would champion his just cause. His complaint? Urban Renewal had not paid him for that parcel of land that he had elected to clear and on which he had attached his own price tag for the work done. He had — like everybody else in the game — calculated his own worth, and, like everybody else who got their slice of the pie, could not understand why he couldn’t get his.

A short letter from lawyer Leander Esfakis, published on this page today, recounts a tale that she was told that shows how our money, intended for public use, is being misappropriated. When Ms Esfakis asked a courier what he thought about Urban Renewal, he told her an $80,000 hair raising tale. He said he had a contractor friend who was paid $80,000 to put the roof on an old lady’s home. With such a price tag, Ms Esfakis was obviously curious to know the size of the house and its roof. Obviously that was just a minor detail. The contractor was paid $80,000, but he never put the roof on the house, she was told. He just pocketed the money - you know how it is – all in a day’s work!

No, Bahamians are not only unhappy, but they are suspicious as to how public money — their money — is being wasted.

Before we get any further this is a reminder that when a donation is used for a special purpose, legal action can be taken, if , without reference to the donor, it is diverted to a purpose for which it was not intended.

We don’t know how many readers recall the day the late Sir Jack Hayward demanded to know how NEMA had spent a $1m gift from him and his late partner, Edward St George, for hurricane relief on Grand Bahama. Various civil servants brushed him off, refusing to account for the funds. Sir Jack’s patience snapped when he was shooed away with the assurance that his money had been put to good use in hurricane relief. Well that hit the jugular vein! Sir Jack exploded – and what an explosion! He bent our ear for most of the morning in a telephone call from Freeport explaining why he wanted his story in The Tribune. These people just had to learn a lesson, he said.

Hadn’t he attached the $1m cheque to a letter that had specifically said all of the money was to be used for restoring the educational facilities in Freeport? Apparently, the YMCA, which Sir Jack considered an educational facility because it catered to children, appealed to NEMA for $400,000 to restore its building. NEMA turned it down - no money for that purpose.

However, NEMA had already diverted the $1m from Freeport to the general account in Nassau. For this NEMA could have been sued.

It would be good for anyone handling donated money to read the full account of this transaction. They will learn from this that if money is given for a certain purpose it cannot be given to another cause without first getting the donor’s permission. Otherwise, the person directing the funds to another cause — no matter how worthy — could end up before the Bar of the court to answer for his sins. We advise government — all sections of government — to be careful how they handle the people’s money. Government is not trusted and Bahamians are angry. So, like Sir Jack, this is once sweet-talking will not calm the troubled waters.