The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

MR BRAVE DAVIS, PLP Deputy Prime Minister, has complained that the outgoing FNM government signed some 80 contracts worth over $24 million dollars during the months of March through the recent election campaign ending early May.

It was even suggested by Mr Perry Christie, PLP Prime Minister, during the campaign, that this was "open bribery".

Of course the FNM accused the PLP of doing the same thing when in the waning days of their 2002 - 2007 term they signed a contract to rebuild the Straw Market for over $30 million that was subsequently revoked and built for substantially less. Did the outgoing party back then sign more than just the Straw Market contract?

No party has clean hands in these matters so to speak, but the legitimate question raised is whether or not governments should be signing contracts nearing the end of its term. The government and civil service still have to function during the final months of an administration, so it's a difficult call when, or even if, there should be a cut off date for signing contracts.

Obviously roads, buildings, docks and more need repairs on an ongoing basis, so should hands be tied from continuing the routine work of government? I'm not sure. And as government becomes larger and larger, with more buildings and other physical plant, ongoing maintenance becomes a challenge.

Maybe limits can be set over the last two or three months, but what happens if there's an emergency that needs immediate attention?

Eighty contracts for $24 million were signed representing an average of agreement of $300,000 each.

Surely the country should know more about what they are for before agreeing it was "open bribery". If there is bribery, etc, then there is a case for the courts. Let a judge decide based on the evidence.

Incoming governments reviewing contracts is not a problem, the private sector reviews contracts all the time to make sure the arrangement provides value for money.

The 2007 straw market contract was rescinded because the original scope did not provide value for money. Why does the government need a movie theatre and restaurant for example?

If recent contracts are being reviewed to simply "get even" with perceived political transgressions, or to give them to cronies because the friends of the former government won a legitimate bid, then it sets the country back.

As long as the contracts were signed based on the criteria issued by the government, were in the approved capital budget, are necessary, and they were awarded to legitimate businesses then let's move on.

It's not clear how the government can stop signing contracts and continue functioning at a reasonable pace because an election is approaching.

Maybe Government Ministers should not be present at contract signings during election time. This will remove the spectre of "vote getting" by signing the contracts during the final days of any administration.

RICK LOWE

Nassau,

May, 2012