The Tribune

PUBLIC use of funds has come under the spotlight recently – and the Office of the Prime Minister did itself no favours yesterday with a statement that sounded petulant at best.

The statement was in response to the allocation of $100,000 for Family Island trips that included events encouraging people to vote for the PLP in the by-election in West Grand Bahama and Bimini.

FNM leader Michael Pintard has responded by pointing out that the Constitution says that money from the consolidated fund can only be used for public purposes approved by Parliament, and that the Public Finance Management Act goes on to say that no sum can be charged to that fund outside of mandated and approved expenses.

The OPM responded with a statement dismissing criticism, listing events that Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis made to West Grand Bahama and Bimini such as the opening of a government complex, a cabinet meeting, a visit to children taking part in the school breakfast programme, the signing of a $100m heads of agreement at Ocean Cay and so on.

The statement itself, however, then goes on to say that “on days during which he conducted official business and then at night met with Bahamians in his capacity as leader of his party, should he have flown back to Nassau, then returned on another flight paid for by the party? Whom precisely would that have served?”

Well, first of all, the prime minister it would seem should count himself lucky that by pure coincidence public events happened to be organised on the exact same days as party events. What a fluke!

Of course, those party events did not need to be organised on the same days that the leadership was travelling on the public dime, but here we are, blessed by such a happenstance.

The point is that government resources should not be used to benefit the party in power. The FNM did not get public funds to cover travel to campaign on the ground, nor did the COI, nor did independents such as Terneille Burrows who presumably had to dig into their own pockets rather than benefit from catching a ride to an official ceremony then staying for a rally afterwards.

Recently, of course, there has also been questions asked about why funds were reshuffled from the public purse, especially those assigned to a disability commission in order to pay for a memorial to Obie Wilchcombe, whose passing led to that by-election.

Then back in 2022, there was a debate over who paid for a trip to Bermuda by a delegation that saw the Prime Minister speaking at a political convention for that nation’s ruling Progressive Labour Party.

Questions were raised over who paid for the trip, with Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell saying it was a standard visit to another country, but communications director in the Office of the Prime Minister Latrae Rahming saying that travel costs were covered by the PLP.

A copy of a $24,000 cheque was later released, but the full trip’s cost was just under $60,000. In January of the following year, it was announced that the PLP had fully reimbursed the treasury for the cost of that trip.

Keeping public funds from being used to benefit one particular party is to ensure a level playing field. And quite frankly if one party is entitled to public funds, why aren’t they all? And, conversely of course, if one is not entitled, then none should.

Great caution must be taken to make sure that no party in power is given a financial advantage through public funds – and suggestions that well, they were there anyway so why not have an event to encourage votes does not hint at great care. Anything but.

Small part causes big problems

There is an old saying, often said wistfully, that goes “For the want of a nail …”

The longer saying comes from a proverb about a battle. For the want of a nail in a horseshoe, the horse was lost, then the rider was lost, then the battle was lost, and then the whole kingdom.

While no kingdoms were lost, The Tribune battled its own frustrations for Thursday’s edition for the want of a part that cost a few dollars.

An electrical problem meant that our printing press could not run – which led to a curtailed version of our regular paper.

Unfortunately, our Obituaries section had to be split over two days – the second of those sections is in today’s edition, and with it our religion coverage carried over to today instead.

Throughout the night, a determined team tried to solve the puzzle, and yesterday the final piece – that part costing a few dollars – was put in place, and the printing press roared into life once more.

Still, queries came in from a number of readers wondering what had happened, and so we thought it best to share this glimpse behind the scenes.

While out and about recently, a sign caught our eye at a store undergoing some upgrades saying “Apologies for our appearance while we are making improvements”.

We shall take a leaf out of their book and make our apologies for our appearance following the disruption of Wednesday evening.

We are delighted to say, however, that readers can expect business as usual with the repair now completed.

We thank you for your queries, too, which are always appreciated.