Search Results for 'turtle farm'
A lost opportunity?
The proponents of closing a portion of the West Bay Road have closed their eyes to the great opportunity that theextension of the Esterley Tibbetts Highway brings. I have never been directly involved in the tourism sector of our economy but over many years I have read and heard from those involved that our tourism product needs to be improved. This ETH extension would allow a significant improvement in my opinion.
We have a development company that apparently intends to develop multiple hotel properties. It is claimed that these properties will need direct “beach frontage” to be successful.
Other persons have already pointed out that this frontage is in no way any guarantee of success, as seen by the struggles of existing hotels, that are on much, much better direct beach frontage. This company also does not wish to wait for some future government to possibly extend the ETH through their land, thereby creating even more opportunities for the developer.
(As a side note, query whether the land for the road corridor should actually cost a future government anything because often the increase in the adjacent land value will compensate for the appropriation of the corridor, making it a win-win process.)
Once the ETH extension is complete the volume of traffic on WBR will drop significantly. This is the start of the opportunity. The reduction of the maximum speed on WBR to 25mph, which has been talked about for quite some time, would be the next step and drop the traffic volume further. This would then create a zone along the entire western side of the island, where our very valuable tourism clientele can live/play/visit in a family friendly environment.
The existing WBR can gradually be converted into an “avenue” with more shade — and colour — providing flora (maybe in sections of the existing middle lane), and with pedestrian crossing zones with lights or even lower speeds in high volume areas, and traffic-calming measures to automatically enforce the maximum speed, such as bumps,
as well as cycle lanes.
This would enable our tourism visitors (has anyone really considered the situation from their perspective?) to move about from WB to GT, while visiting all of the included amenities, without ever travelling on a fast multi-lane road where most of them are driving on the “wrong” side. Another benefit would be to have a route conducive to older resident drivers who, quite sensibly, might prefer not to deal with faster multiple lanes of traffic and roundabouts. Plus it leaves the WB/GT alternate route, which was always envisioned since SMB development began, in case of problems on the new main route.
This change of WBR use will also promote some increase of development on the east side of WBR. Potential developers would likely be more willing to invest since the guests of their properties would only have to deal with limited, slow-moving traffic for beach access, as would the hotels by the current development company.
Additional (light-controlled) pedestrian crossings could be added as incentives for new properties as needed. Local companies would also be able to offer new/more outdoor/healthy activities, such as bicycle/segway/walking tours, and the tour/water sports/taxi/bus transport companies could move around collecting customers in a smoother and safer environment.
Close your eyes and imagine some future tourists renting electric bicycles to visit the Turtle Farm or go shopping from a WBR condo/ hotel or even a cruise ship via this scenic avenue without any fear of fast moving traffic.
We are told that the ETH extension is to compensate for the WBR closure. I do not really agree with that scenario as the trade is not fair (plus additional issues brought up by others). If the closure proceeds, the country will forever have closed the door to the opportunites I have described.
Vehicular traffic will always have to use the ETH to get around this closed section and the idea of speed reduction on WBR loses its effect, especially if other developmentsrequest that same agreement. The properties on the closed section(s) will benefit greatly, but that is a selfish proposal when compared to the longer term benefits for sustaining/improving our overall tourism product.
The persons who should be heard from on this subject are the owners of the hotel/condominium/tour/water sports/restaurant/retail businesses that operate in this area. Let us hear if they consider that this closure proposal has any benefits to their existing or future product offering. What do they see happening to their business activity (in the non-closure areas) over the next 20 years if this proposal continues?
Development benefits are greatly desired but should not be restricted in their focus. They should be for the long term benefit of the entire country.
Mac’s admission ‘astounding’
(CNS): The opposition leader said he was astounded that the premier still feels he has done nothing wrong despite admitting to requesting an illegal shipment of explosives be released. Alden McLaughlin said the letter that Premier McKeeva Bush sent to customs asking for the dynamite to be freed when it had been seized by officials was simply unlawful and an abuse of office. He said the law was strict for a reason because dynamite is a dangerous substance. Ezzard Miller added that Bush’s comment that he was trying to help a friend was extremely troubling as no minister has that kind of authority.
Both men said that if Bush received a request for assistance he should have looked into the matter and checked the legal implications with the relevant government officials, or asked his chief officer to find out what was happening. But, they said, he was not in a legal position to request that civil servants by-pass the law, something which the premier should be well-aware.
“It was not lawful for him to issue an instruction or request to the collector of customs to release the explosives,” McLaughlin said.
In Wednesday’s edition of the Caymanian Compass, Alan Markoff writes that the paper is in receipt of various pieces of correspondence between the importer of the dynamite, the premier and customs.
Although the paper has elected not to post these documents on its website, Markoff claims to have a copy of the letter Bush wrote to Collector of Customs Colin Powery on 7 March. In that correspondence the premier allegedly instructed the release of the 32 tonnes of dynamite, despite the fact that it was illegally imported.
Bush wrote: “By way of this memorandum, I request that the blasting materials for Midland Acres, which are currently held by HM Customs, be released,” and he went on to ask for his request to be expedited “as the company is desperately in need of the materials to proceed with their on-going projects.”
Last week while appearing on Cayman27’s talk show, "The Panel", Bush implied that all he had done was try to help a friend when he requested the release.
The company involved in the importation of the illegal shipment is Midland Acres and, according to the Compass report, the director who wrote to the premier requesting his assistance was Suresh Prasad, who admitted some “oversights” as far as paperwork was concerned. Asking for Bush’s help, Prasad said a "large investment of funds” had been made in the explosives which were now tied up.
McLaughlin told CNS that he was concerned about the involvement of Prasad as his name had been linked to the premier in the past in matters regarding the potential misuse and waste of public money.
According to the former auditor general’s report on the financing of Boatswain Beach- Turtle Farm, Prasad was involved in brokering a financing package for the project. He, along with others, received considerable sums from government coffers in fees for assisting with the financing for the project, despite the fact that the deals never materialized.
The dynamite was reportedly destined for use in quarrying in order to supply fill for a major local project. CNS has contacted the Dart Group asking if the developer has any agreements to purchase fill from Midland Acres.
We’ll give up fees, says Mac
(CNS): Although the government will not be borrowing money or guaranteeing any loans for the development of cruise berthing facilities in George Town, the premier has acknowledged that it will be giving up passenger fees in order to pay for it. Following the expiration this weekend of the extended MOU with China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC), McKeeva Bush said there were still things to consider about the deal before he signed the major definitive agreement with the Beijing-based firm. He also said that negotiations about the share of profits in time and the opportunity for investment in the upland element were still not finalised but the development could start in September.
“We want to make sure that we are doing the right thing before we sign this agreement,” he told Cayman27 news on Monday. “We believe that we have the best partner in China Harbour but we have to make certain."
Speaking to the local TV station via phone from Houston, Texas, where Bush is on his latest trip, reportedly meeting with representatives from a major oil company, he indicated that government still had to discuss some key elements of the proposed cruise port development, which could take a few months.
“While we are not required to sign a guarantee and while we are not borrowing, we still have to give up the passenger fees that we get to be able to pay for this new dock and various processes have to completed,” he said. The premier did not indicate exactly how much of the fees currently collected by the Treasury would now go to the developer or how much the fees would be increased.
Bush signed the first MOU with the Chinese firm some ten months ago after pulling out of talks with the then potential partner GLF construction in April last year. Speculation that his decision had cost the public purse a significant sum was confirmed in Finance Committee recently when legislators appropriated over CI$2 milllion to settle the legal dispute with the firm outside of court.
Government then entered into new talks with CHEC and signed an MOU in June. When that expired it extended the negotiation period to the end of March. Since government entered into those talks with the Chinese, the project has grown significantly from the original two finger piers, one of which would accommodate the new mega ships with basic upland facilities, to a major upland retail development covering some 100,000sq ft. It includes two larger finger piers as well as a pier in West Bay at the Turtle Farm, the renovation of Spotts Jetty for poor weather and possible facilities on Cayman Brac.
Retailers in George Town, the Cayman Contractors Association, the political opposition, several of the sea captains and water sports operators, as well as numerous local environmental activists have all raised concerns about the growing size and cost of the project as well as the choice of partner. Despite widespread support for the need for cruise berthing facilities and what could have been government’s most supported proposal, the project is becoming increasingly controversial.
Listen to the premier’s call with Cayman 27 here.
GLF offered to expand deal
(CNS): Despite claims by the premier that GLF construction did not have the money to undertake the cruise berthing facilities in George Town and were unable to do the Spotts redevelopment or the pier in West Bay at the Turtle Farm, a letter from the developer suggests otherwise. McKeeva Bush told the Finance Committee on Tuesday that he had terminated talks with the developer because China Harbour Engineering Company could give government all three projects, but the CEO of GLF wrote to the premier on June last year offering to include the extra sites as part of an expanded proposal.
Following the letter from the premier that had terminated the exclusive talks between government, the Port Authority and GLF, minutes and other documentation have since revealed that the Port Authority and government’s lead negotiator at the time, back bench MLA Cline Glidden, were in favour of continuing with GLF.
The Florida-based Italian company had continued to engage government, regardless the premier’s position, and impress upon it that it was ready to take on the work. The June letter from Francesco Senis states that the financing was in place with Citigroup and in the meantime the firm was able to begin financing the project itself. It pointed to a $14 billion contract in Venice that the company had recently completed and the simulation of the port design, which Bush had been shown earlier that year.
Senis also reveals that talks with the cruise liners had received their support for the financial, design and technical elements of the project, which was expected to result in preferential berthing agreements once government and GLF had signed the main deal.
Despite the position that Bush had taken in his correspondence to the firm in April terminating the exclusive talks, GLF said it had noted government’s intention “to leverage its port assets to secure additional works at Spotts and the Turtle Farm” and was willing to expand its proposal to include these projects.
“We hereby undertake to commit the same expertise and dispatch to these additional projects as we provided on the George Town facility, subject to equal commitment by the government and the signing of the necessary contractual agreements for the George Town project,” Senis wrote.
However, government had switched its attention to CHEC and then signed an MOU with the Beijing-based firm some ten days after Senis sent his offer to government. Later GLF threatened to take legal action, and as a result the government was forced to make a more than $2 million settlement from the public purse.
The premier stated on Tuesday during the Finance Committee hearing when he revealed the cost of the settlement to government coffers that the money would be recovered as a result of the sale of “intellectual property" related to the project. He also cryptically insisted that there were other reasons why the government had decided not to continue with GLF, which, he said, may come out later.
See letter below.
See related articles:
GLF got $2M settlement
(CNS): The actual settlement given to GLF Construction as a result of the premier’s decision to terminate talks with the developer over the cruise facilities is $2,093,750, according to the appropriation made on Tuesday at Finance Committee. Premier McKeeva Bush confirmed the speculation that the increase in the finance ministry budget for compensation from $605,000 to $2,698,750 was a direct result of the decision to settle with the firm outsideof court. He said the legal advice was it would be cheaper than going to trial, even if government could have defended and won the case. He added that the public purse would eventually be compensated as a result of the sale of ‘intellectual property’, the details of which he could not reveal, he said.
Answering questions from the opposition leader regarding the change in expenditure for his own ministry, Bush, who was chairing a special sitting of Finance Committee, also revealed that the expected costs of the Spotts Jetty had doubled in price. Spelling out why he had decided to move from GLF to CHEC, he claimed the Beijing-based firm was going to give government more and in the end the country would be “way ahead” with that proposal.
“As far as our legal team was concerned, it was best to settle out of court … rather than go to court as we felt it would cost us more, even with a chance to win,” Bush said. “I took the decision to settle the matter. I believe the proposal that we have in front of us, where the dock is going to cost money to build that we don’t have and where GLF was not proposing to do certain things that we wanted done … being the Spots Jetty, which is between $6 and $8 million and the Turtle Farm, which we don’t have the money to do….”
Bush said that the redevelopment of the Turtle Farm had always been tied to the idea of a dock there, which was why the facility was costing government around $9 million in subsidy. He said the facility had been done with the support of the industry as Grand Cayman had needed more improved tourist amenities, but he said government would not have built it if the dock was not part of the deal as it would not have been able to get the people there.
“When I consider that we had worked out a programme with CHEC to build the Spots Jetty and to develop a facility at the Turtle Farm, that as far as we are concerned … even though we had to pay out $2 milllion, that puts us way ahead, that cost pales in comparison to $2 million of settlement that we agreed on.”
He said government would still be compensated as it would receive the same amount by the sale of the intellectual property, such as the framework agreement between GLF. He said the lawyers were dealing with it and it would be made public in time as to who was buying it but he couldn’t reveal the details yet.
Alden McLaughlin asked the premier if, given the settlement, this was a concession that the contract was wrongfully terminated.
“Well that was their position,” Bush said. “Even though we felt we could have won, it would have cost us much more to do battle in court. We decided we weren’t going that route … They held that they were wrongfully … we said ‘no’ … when it was all figured up it could cost probably $7 million or $5 million to settle with them if we went to trial …”
The premier also said that there were other reasons why he had chosen not to continue with GLF but he would not reveal those reasons but maybe it would come out in due course, he said cryptically as he went on to suggested he was being spied on.
“There is a tremendous amount of talk. There is even what I would term espionage going on because I certainly can’t go anywhere before I see two people with a camera following me up and down … and they are running around with petitions. They were people who were part and parcel of the local construction company … because they didn’t get the business they are doing their endeavour best to make this more than it is.”
Bush said that until such a time wherethat he could make things open, this was all he could say.
Port choice’couldn’t be worse’
(CNS): The opposition leader has stated that if the government had deliberately searched the world over it could not have found a more inappropriate company to develop the cruise berthing facilities. Alden McLaughlin said it appeared that wherever China Harbour Engineering Company was working there seemed to be concerns of one kind or another. Despite his own belief that there is a pressing need for cruise berthing in the capital, he said that government really should reconsider this current proposal. Not only is CHEC the wrong company, the project has become much wider than had ever previously been intended and has turned into a financing deal that will in the long run be paid for by Cayman.
Given what he described as the “reputational issues” relating to the Beijing based firm, McLaughlin wondered what it was that had driven the government to select this company. "If the government had hunted every corner of the globe, I don't think they could have made a worse choice," he said.
The opposition leader also queried the decision of government to allow the project to double in size and cost because, he said, in the end Cayman would pay. “CHEC is not going to mind about the extras, as the more we add on the more we are going to pay," he said. “This is a major financing deal and every penny will have to be paid back by the Cayman Islands Government with interest,” McLaughlin warned, adding that it was no surprise that the Chinese developers were happy toincrease the project size.
According to the planning agenda for 1 February, the upgrade to the Spotts Jetty will cost a further $3.2 million on top of the approximate $200 million the George Town facility is now expected to cost.
The planning department has confirmed that planning permission was granted to the Port Authority to develop an open-sided tourist facility, including restrooms, waiting area and an information booth at Spotts, which will still be needed to offer tendering to ships in bad weather and for when the four berths in George Town are already full. The coastal works licence to construct the jetty will need to be approved by Cabinet and at the time of the planning application this had not yet been submitted.
The government has also stated that it wishes to develop another pier in West Bay across from the Cayman Turtle Farm but a cost estimate for that project has not yet been revealed.
McLaughlin said the increase in the size of the George Town project plus the jetties at Spotts and West Bay were likely to offer a return to CHEC that the firm would not be able to get anywhere else, which was why it was more than happy to 'up the ante' on the overall size and scope of the deal, should government sign on the dotted line.
The need for cruise berthing in George Town was obvious, McLaughlin, stated but he had questions about these add-ons as well as the scale of the upland development that would accompany the berthing facilities in the capital.
The opposition leader also noted that the project, and in particular the government’s preferred partner on the deal, has never been through the central tendering process and that CHEC was not even on the original list of bids received by the Port Authority. He said there was a lack of transparency all along, and although there was provision for a sole contractor, there was a process for that which needed to be followed.
Defending the choice made by the PPM administration, of which he was a part, to sign an MOU with Atlantic Star, he pointed out that in that case the developer owned the land that would have been involved in the upland element of the development, making it a unique case. He said that had the issue progressed beyond talks, there was provision in the Public Management and Finance Law for government to apply to the Central Tenders Committee to consider awarding to a specific developer under such circumstances.
Looking to the future, the opposition leader pointed out how difficult it would be to unravel the deal down the line if the CIG commits to the growing project. As was clear from the premier’s rejection of GLF construction (government’s second choice to develop the facility), even before a heads of agreement was signed there were significant consequences, namely the approximately $3.5 million settlement reached with GLF after it was rejected by the premier on the eve of signing a full deal, which will, it seems, be paid for from the public purse, McLaughlin noted.
CHEC plans $35 cruise fee
(CNS): The Cayman Islands will have the most expensive cruise passenger fees in the region if government goes ahead and signs a deal with China Harbour Engineering Company. According to a report commissioned by the Port Authority Board and conducted by KPMG in April last year, shortly after the premier terminated the talks with GLF Construction, the Chinese developers plan to charge the cruise lines US$35 per passenger, compared to a maximum of US$18.85 proposed by GLF. The report warns that the fee could be too high, and with no passenger guarantee underthe Chinese deal, the consultants warn of the real risk that Cayman could price itself out of the market.
The report (attached below) also reveals that if the cruise lines swallowed the $35, the profit to the Chinese over the fifty years that they would operate the cruise port could be quite significant. Furthermore, government would be giving up potential revenue with the Chinese deal for far longer than the time proposed by GLF, which would have seen the developer collecting on cruise fees for 25 years, not 51 as now proposed by CHEC.
KPMG was asked to make a comparison between the two proposal, which it said was difficult because at the time the consultants had few details on the CHEC proposal, referred to in the report as ‘Developer B’.
Noting significant differences between the two proposals, which made a true comparison difficult to make, the consultants did find that there were risks with developer B’s proposal. They pointed in particular to the requirement to relinquish the management of the port to the developer, relegating the Port Authority of the Cayman Islands (PACI) to a regulator from its current role as manager.
"Passing control of the port to a third party would require detailed concession agreements and contractual arrangements to ensure operations and management are in line with required standards – this creates contractual risk and increases the complexity of the project,” the firm stated.
It further noted that in 2008 PACI had made a decision that it should retain control of the port management as this was considered the most appropriate operating model.
Speaking about the fee increase and the failure of developer B to secure passenger guarantees from the cruise lines, KPMG said there was a potential risk that cruise lines will reduce the port of calls to Grand Cayman, or even avoid the destination altogether, in response to such a significant increase of some 100%.
However, the profit that could be made if the cruise lines accepted the fee would be significant and KPMG pointed to the need for the government to reduce the time period that CHEC would be managing the port in order to ensure the public purse benefited sooner from the profit.
On seeing KPMG’s report, the independent MLA for North Side, Ezzard Miller, said it was "alarming" to discover the Chinese would be doubling the fee proposed by GLF. He also noted that the Chinese could make a pure profit of over a billion dollars on this project. Compared to the proposal submitted by GLF, CHEC would be getting “three bites of the cherry”, he said: not only would they make the money on the financing agreement, they would also profit from the construction element and from what is now believed to be a 51-year lease on the port.
The independent member said the report made it clear that the GLF proposal was a far better deal for the Cayman people because they would cease collecting the passenger fee after 25 years, 30 at most, and there would be no upland retail to compete with local merchants.
He said that the project never required any government guarantees, contrary to claims made by the premier, as the only thing GLF needed to start work and get access to financing was the signed master agreement for the project.
The increase in fees would, if the cruise ships continued to come, produce a substantial return for the Chinese, which would be added to the profits the firm would make from the upland development, Miller stated.
The higher fees are down to the massive difference in cost as the CHEC plan for the two piers and upland element is expected to cost around $350 million, compared to the GLF proposal at around $175 million. The Beijing-based firm has also agreed to upgrade Spotts jetty and build a pier at the Turtle Farm in West Bay and will expect to recover costs for those two projects via the George Town facility.
Chinese are best, says Bush
(CNS): China Harbour Engineering Company is the best option for the cruise port, the premier has said, because government has examined many other possibilities and no one else has the money with the right plan for Cayman. McKeeva Bush has also revealed that when CHEC has recovered its investment in the planned facility, the Cayman government will get a 40% share in the profits. He declared that the Chinese would be developing the port in George Town, the bad weather alternative at the Spotts jetty and a new pier in West Bay but did not say when he expected the main agreement to be signed or when the work would start. Delivering his much anticipated annual CBO speech, Bush failed to reveal any new initiatives or any details on other pending projects.
Speaking about the cruise berthing facilities, he said that following negotiations with both Dart, who he said had the money but the wrong plan, and GLF, who he claimed didn't have the money, he re-emphasized his commitment to CHEC as government's partner on the much anticipated project.
“The Chinese remain the best company to do the cruise facilities,” Bush told an audience of some 350 people at the CBO conference at the Westin Resort on Thursday morning. “You can search from now until Kingdom come and nobody else has the money.”'
He made the noted exception that Dart did, but as he wanted a 99 year lease the people had objected to that proposal. GLF, the previous developers in negotiations with government, did not have the money, he said, as they had wanted a letter from him so they “could go out and peddle bonds to finance” the proposal, Bush added.
He made no mention of the South Sound proposal, which he has rejected previously because it is not in George Town where the exisiting merchants have made their investment. He also made no mention of the latest proposal, which has also been submitted to the government that has suggested placing the facilities further North of George Town in the Pageant beach area.
He said the Chinese would and could do the much needed project. He emphasised the need for the port facilities when he said that most Caymanians who worked in the tourism sector depended on cruise tourism.
Bush stated that the agreement with CHEC would include the renovation of the Spotts Jetty and that the pier which was always intended for the Turtle Farm in West Bay would be part of the deal. With government subsidizing the Farm to the tune of $9 million every year because of the low visitor numbers, Bush said a dock there would stop that. When the Turtle Farm was redeveloped it was done with the understanding that there would be a dock, he stated, but “the previous government didn't do it”, so the facility went into deficit. With a pier at the location there would be thousands more visitors, the premier added, as well as a significant saving to the public purse.
He told the CBO conference delegates that the Chinese, not the Cayman government, would cover the cost of the environmental impact assessment for the facilities. Bush acknowledged that there would be issues, such as the requirement to move the George Town dive wreck, which he said should never have been in the harbour. Admitting that the location was not necessarily perfect, he lamented the objection to what he believes is the perfect spot, which is the George Town area of the North Sound.
Outlining other aspects of the negotiaitons between government, the Port Authority and CHEC, he said the Chinese would also be covering the costs of tendering at the new facilities and that all material for the project would be bought locally and they would be responsible for the costs of on-going maintenance of the facility. Bush stated that all of the upland development would be undertaken by local contractors.
Addressing fears based on the experience of other jurisdictions in the region that have done business with CHEC, Bush said there would be no trailer camps. “Any accommodation that they need they will have to rent local rooms. There will be no trailers,” he said.
Focusing on the financial issues, he emphasized that there would be no government loan or even any guarantee to the firm with this deal. Bush stated again that people would be able to byshares in the project and there would be a direct profit share for the public purse as well.
“When they pay off their investment in 25 years, we think, there will be a profit sharing with the Cayman Islands Government of 40%. Now, as business people, then you tell me if that's bad,” he told the audience of the CBO.
Check back to CNS and CNS Business later today and Friday for more from the CBO conference.
Accounting for the cash
How governments collect and spend public cash is one of the key issues on which they are judged, but here in the Cayman Islands no one really knows how this or the previous administration actually spent our money. As the UDP approaches the last year of this government, the voters still don’t have access to any meaningful account of how it has actually spent the people’s cash or how successful it has been at collecting what it is owed.
In his latest update on the state of government accounting, the auditor general went very easy on the government. No doubt exhausted by the efforts to try and have it produce anything at all that accounts for what it is doing with the money it collects from the people, and not wishing to undermine the relatively minor step forward of meeting accounting deadlines for the first time in eight years, he offered praise and encouragement.
Sadly, however, the failure of government to account for how it has collected and spent our money means that once again when the voters go to the polls in May 2013 they will not really have a clue how the people they are voting for will spend the cash they collect from them. They won’t know where government has failed to collect what’s owed and whether they are wasting cash. They won’t know where money has been well spent and provided a positive outcome because what little information comes from government cannot be relied upon or is meaningless.
Despite claims by government that public finances are being addressed and that it is catching up when it comes to genuine accountability to the people, this is simply not true.
Of the 38 entities that are obligated to produce annual reports only eight — yes, eight — have been made public for even the first financial year in office of the current government. Of those eight only four statutory authorities have unqualified reports that the public can rely on; the other four have qualified reports, which means the auditor general could not be sure that the information supplied in the reports was accurate or credible. So today there are in existence only four statutory authority reports that tell the people how public cash was spent in the financial year from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010. In essence the entire public spending since the government took office with these four exceptions – CIMA, the ERA, CINICO and the Turtle Farm — remain a mystery.
Consequently, some 16 months away from an election the people have no idea how the current government has fared when it comes to spending the people’s money or collecting it.
Has government spent enough on education, not enough on crime fighting, too much on roads or too little on the poor? Has it collected customs from all the right people? Are fees still outstanding and why? Are collection systems themselves efficient? Should government spend less on collecting money or more money to ensure everyone pays their dues?
Legitimate questions about public finances are the most basic reasons why one group of politicians is voted in over another. It will be impossible for any voter in the Cayman Islands to have an accurate idea when they go to the polls how the representatives they are about to vote for will spend their cash.
Often politicians may say they are spending money on one thing and collecting from another as declared in the budget, but the budget documents are a wish list not a reality and difficult for the man in the street to properly interpret .
Unless the people can see and understand clearly the actual amounts collected and the actual amounts spent and the reasons, they cannot make an informed decision when they go to the polls.
The issue of government finance is not about meeting deadlines and obeying the requirements of the law. The Public Management and Finance Law was passed to make government account for how it spends the people’s money – our money not theirs, ours. The annual reports should be telling the people what each government department spent and why but the failure of government to produce them year after year after means the government is simply unaccountable to its employers.
When a government is voted into office we trust those people to collect and spend the money wisely or at the very least as it claimed it would during its election campaign. Even the richest governments do not have an infinite supply of public cash and even in the best of times must make decisions about spending in line with the wishes of the majority. During global recession how the money comes in and goes out is even more fundamental to the voter’s decision.
Given the persistent failure of government to give the people a true and meaningful account of want it has done with the public’s money (that the people can actually understand) means every single voter is handicapped at the polls. The Cayman electorate is notable to make an informed choice about which government they can trust to spend their money in the way they want.
In the end, that’s not democracy.
Public accounts poor quality
(CNS): Although government has made strides on the timely submissions of public accounts to his office, the auditor general says there are still significant concerns about the quality of the information, especially by ministries and portfolios, being submitted. Alastair Swarbrick said Tuesday that while there had been a significant effort to address the backlog and meet reporting deadlines, government must now focus on the quality of the information being presented for audit. In his latest report on the progress made by government on financial reporting and performance accountability he said the goal now is for government to match improvements in timeliness with improvements in quality.
He said that although eight entities still failed to make the deadline for the 2010/11 financial year end accounts, 30 public authorities, ministries and portfolios had made the 31 August date, giving his office enough to begin the audit process.
However, the public auditor said it was difficult to say whether the quality of information submitted would mean that the first set of consolidated government accounts since the Public Management and Finance Law was implemented some eight years ago would be of sufficient quality to enable the public to gain a comprehensive view of how government has spent public money in the last financial year.
When the accounts are audited however, Swarbrick said his office would assist in the interpretation of the results and hopefully help the public understand what the results mean. He also said the production of the consolidated accounts still represented a significant step in the right direction.
Although quick to congratulate government on the efforts made, Swarbrick warned that getting accounts in on time was only the first step in the process of government's accountability to legislators and the public at large.
The quality and credibility of the accounting and performance information government submits for audit is important, he said, as the reports are fundamental when it comes to informing legislators and the public how the dollars collected from them in duties and fees are used.
“It is important that legislators and decision makers have good financial information on which to base their decisions,” Swarbrick said. “The information has to be as reliable and accurate as possible as well as timely.” He explained that the information is how legislators hold government to account for the money it has spent and how money should be used and appropriated in future years.
“It is very important for the general public to be able to see how the fees and duties they have paid have been used and what the position of government is. It also informs their own debate about how money should be used and spent,” Swarbrick added.
The auditor general warned that, despite the efforts of government to address the backlog and submit accounts to his office on time, he would still be issuing qualified opinions because in many cases, the ministries and portfolios in particular, the starting point for the accounts is based on unreliable information.
Swarbrick said that his office would be able to give a more detailed review of the state of the government's accounts in his next quarterly review but what was clear now was the need for the administration to focus on quality. The audit office, he said, would do all it could to help government entities improve the credibility of the information they submit to his office.
The auditor warned again that even when the timeliness and quality of submissions improves the reports need to be in the public domain as soon as possible and he noted that 61 completed and audited reports had still not been tabled in the Legislative Assembly and were still not public documents.
He acknowledged that the immense backlog of reports had played a part in the failure of ministries to table the finished reports but he pointed to the fundamental point of them being made public.
As government goes to work in an effort to create consolidated accounts for the financial year end 30 June 2011, most of the reports for the year ending June 2010, which relates to the UDP's first financial year in office, have not yet been tabled.
The majority of those reports have been audited but 28 of the 38 reports have still not been made available to the public.
In his report Swarbrick also reveals that Cayman Airways, the museum, the National Drug Council, the gallery, the tourism attraction board, the turtle farm, UCCI and the housing trust on the Sister Islands were the only public entities that submitted insufficient information for audit for the last financial year.
See full government accounts update report here