The Tribune

Kindly allow me a few lines to help bring a degree of clarity to the imbroglio that has been thrust into the public domain as a result of claims and counter-claims made between the current BEC chairman and the former junior energy minister regarding the merits (or otherwise) of having electricity service disconnections/reconnections performed by contract personnel (as was introduced during my tenure as BEC chairman), compared to the engagement of permanent, pensionable employees to perform such tasks.

It is commonly said that the devil is in the detail. Before delving into the detail, let me note that the detail I will provide will clearly show that BEC’s bottom line would be enriched by $1.2 million annually in respect of its disconnection/reconnection activities had the measures left in place continued.

I freely admit that having graduated from university in the 1960s, I am not at all au fait with the ‘new math’ concepts advanced by the two good gentlemen to support the views they have presented, views which, in my opinion, appear to reflect a degree of cognitive dissonance on their part.

Having been schooled in the 3 R’s (reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic), I will look to use simple ‘rithmetic to bring clarity to the issue.

BEC presently charges its customers $25 when it carries out a disconnection/reconnection activity. BEC disconnects about 10,000 accounts each month. BEC therefore bills its customers $250,000 per month for disconnection/reconnection ‘services’ - for a grand total of $3 million annually.

During my tenure, temporary contract disconnectors were engaged to perform the ‘service’. The contract workers were contracted on a purely commission basis, and were to receive $10 per disconnection and $5 per reconnection. They would use their own vehicles, be fully responsible for the operation, maintenance and general upkeep of said vehicles, and were not entitled to receive any further remuneration, allowance or gratuity.

Based on 10,000 monthly disconnections/reconnections, such individuals would be able to receive compensation of $150,000 monthly - a total of $1.8 million annually.

BEC, having received $3 million from its customers, and having paid out $1.8 million for contract disconnection/reconnection services, would therefore see its bottom line enriched to the tune of $1.2 million ($3 million minus $1.8 million) annually in respect of these services. I have no doubt that a privately-owned and operated utility company would gladly jump at such an opportunity. Many have likely already done so.

Perhaps the decision that governed engagement of permanent, pensionable employees, and paying them a ‘generous’ salary and benefits, inclusive of employer-funded pension and health insurance schemes, vacation and sick pay, etc, was based on ‘new math’ concepts rather than simple ‘rithmetic. These individuals have, moreover, each been provided with a vehicle, BEC bearing the full operation, maintenance and general upkeep costs, inclusive of gasoline purchases, insurance, licensing....

The clear and unambiguously positive impact to BEC’s bottom line based on the arrangement left in place is abundantly clear. Hopefully, similar clarity will now be presented in respect of the arrangement now in place.

In closing, it is noteworthy that although BEC’s year-to-date income from electricity sales is reported as being down compared to the prior year, and one would ordinarily expect expenses to follow suit, year-to-date expenses are nevertheless up, notwithstanding the several cost-saving measures said to have been put in place. Strange indeed.

Michael R. Moss

Freeport, Bahamas