Rick Lowe
On October 8, 2010, I bumped into a high ranking Cabinet Minister at a social function and for some reason he brought up the brouhaha over Mr. Earl Deavaux's helicopter ride and how silly it all was, and I agreed.
Furthermore, I believe Mr. Deveaux, the Minister of the Environment is above reproach. At least a helicopter ride to help him attend a function for the Friends of the Environment in Abaco and visit the investors property in Exuma to see the site of the proposed excavation of 3,800 feet for access to his property would not be enough to "pollute" him, if you'd pardon the pun.
The point I tried to make to the Minister was these things will continue to happen until conflict of interest is clearly defined in statute law.
His response was that they could never cover every eventuality.
Of course when a legislator makes that point with me I argue that they can find the time and paper to legislate against all and sundry yet keep giving themselves a pass.
That made the rest of the conversation uneasy, in fact it ended because I walked away when it became obvious he did not want to discuss it any longer.
I stand to be corrected, but until parliament establishes binding rules/legislation on conflict of interest, the press and bloggers will continue to take them to task. It will also alleviate the petty politics that surrounds these issues.
While they're at it they should implement a freedom of information act.
By the way, Canada has some useful legislation on the books that cover both matters and could easily be adapted for our use. I realise it's not from Barbados like everything else, but it just might help. All they need do is Google it.
But what am I running on about, If they did that, what would they talk about in Parliament and on radio? That's a rhetorical question of course.They might just have to pay better attention to the affairs of state.
I agree with you Rick on both recommendations. A Parliamentary Code of Conduct and a Freedom of Information Act in my opinion are necessary.
I agree Rick, good points for the rational to consider.
It would be nice if the functionaries of the country did not have to depend on the provision of private assets to be placed at their disposal for them to properly administer their function.
Infrastructure is not just Government buildings.
I for one am sick of the adversarial position they often take.
A perfect example is our recent issue with Bahamas Customs.
They have never approached us in a polite and reasonable manner, to ask our assistance, to discuss how we might help them resolve an issue they have.
They have not even specified exactly what it is they want.
We still sit here willing to help, if they would only COMMUNICATE.
They just demand. With a club.
I do not respond well to a club.
Thanks.
Many politicians agree, yet nothing ever happens.
I presented all the links etc to Mr. Pierre Dupuch many years ago and suggested a Private Members Bill, but events overtook him I guess.
Why don’t you do that?
You might get kicked out of your party, but it might put us on the way to a more accountable political class.
Rick, you make such good arguments, but dont you think the politicans making laws pertaining to themselves, and most of them being lawyers will not place loop holes in the law? As the old saying goes, we would be “Putting the fox to guard the hen house.”
C.Lowe: If the elected officials would only communicate with businessmen and women on how to solve problems which they have or ways in which to run BIG BUSINESS which is what government is they would be doing themselves and the country a huge favor. This is a pipe dream to us since we know full well they “think” that we are not as smart as them.
I would like to take all the elected officials and give them the small opportunities some of us have had and been successful with and challenge them to do the same. The same goes for most of the “Civil Service.” Which incidentally are not always “Civil” or “Service” oriented
Being that they need the private sector for revenue stream via taxation, you’d think that they would be trying to preserve instead of hamper and restrict.
The solution is quite simple:
reign in the arbitrary and unlawful Civil service actionsand practices aided and abetted by the political establishment.
Return us all to the rule of law, with benefits and penalties as lawfully provided for.
The road to hell may be paved with good intention, but the end does not justify any means.
Return independence to the Judiciary, equip and staff it properly would be the highest priority in my opinion.
Restore the faith of the public in the Police forces, by returning them in practice to the enforcement of the rule of law.
No civil servant can tell any citizen NO with regards to any Government service so set up to provide.
All they can lawfully do is tell you what is lawfully required in order to recieve a YES.
Denial is not a personal power.
Service to the public is an obligation.