By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor
nhartnell@tribunemedia.net
Two Callenders & Co attorneys “cannot complain” about being excluded from the recent Hawksbill Creek Agreement consultation because they were given “multiple reasonable opportunities” to participate.
Dr Doswell Coakley, secretary to the Government-appointed Hawksbill Creek Agreement Review Committee, alleged in a September 24, 2015, affidavit that both Fred Smith QC and Carey Leonard decided not to participate by “personal choice” despite having a wealth of knowledge on the issues being discussed.
Dr Coakley, supporting the Government’s defence to the duo’s Judicial Review action, which has branded the Hawksbill Creek Agreement consultation as “fundamentally flawed”, said personal invitations to participate in the process were sent by the committee to both men.
Mr Leonard appeared before the committee on April 17, where he told them that he was unable to ‘make a meaningful contribution’ due to the absence of the report produced by the international consulting firm, McKinsey.
Dr Coakley, a former Grand Bahama Chamber of Commerce president, also added that Mr Smith was invited to separate meetings on the Hawksbill Creek Agreement amendments by the Freeport Bar and the Freeport Law Society, as well as the Northern Bar.
While unaware of whether Mr Smith attended these meetings, Dr Coakley alleged that the committee had done “its best to solicit” Mr Smith’s input.
“In all the circumstances, it is my view that the applicants cannot complain that they were not afforded an opportunity for consultation (in fact, they admit that they were afforded opportunities), nor that they did not have adequate notice, as they were given multiple opportunities over a period of several months,” Dr Coakley alleged.
“It is clear from the evidence provided in the affidavits of both applicants that they are very knowledgeable about the issues which the committee was considering.
“To the extent that they did not participate, or did not participate fully or ‘meaningfully’ in the consultation, it was because of their personal choice for various reasons which they have asserted. The committee made every reasonable opportunity to include them in the consultation process.”
However, Dr Coakley’s affidavit was noticeably silent on the issue at the heart of the Callenders & Co duo’s action - the McKinsey report and its non-disclosure to Freeport stakeholders.
Dr Coakley would only say that the respondents to the Judicial Review - the Prime Minister, Dr Michael Darville, minister of Grand Bahama, and committee chairman, Dr Marcus Bethel - “reserve their position with respect to any issues or claims arising from the McKinsey report.
Yet the Judicial Review challenge is founded on the premise that the process overseen by the Government-appointed Hawksbill Creek Agreement Review Committee is “flawed” because the Government has failed to release the McKinsey report.
The report is said to have analysed Freeport’s economic situation, and assessed both measures to spur growth and the impact of the city’s expiring Business Licence and real property tax investment incentives, which were subsequently extended to February 4, 2016.
The McKinsey report also influenced the committee’s ‘Terms of Reference’ and Government policy thinking, and Messrs Smith and Leonard are arguing that by keeping its contents secret, the Christie administration is preventing interested parties from being able to properly contribute to the debate on Freeport’s future.
The ‘minutes’ of the committee’s April 17 meeting with Mr Leonard even reveal that Sarah Ray, a McKinsey representative, was present, highlighting the importance of the consultancy firm’s work.
However, Dr Coakley alleged: “There was nothing in the way the meeting was conducted by the chairman or any of the other members to place any restrictions on Mr Leonard’s ability to express his views on the matters under consideration, and any such limitations were self-imposed.”
He added that Mr Leonard had “particular insight’ into the matters being discussed, since he was a former in-house attorney for the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA), and a former president and director of the Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Grand Bahama Chamber of Commerce, respectively.
Dr Coakley reiterated the same in respect to Mr Smith, alleging that the QC had “vast and diverse knowledge of matters relating to the Hawksbill Creek Agreement and the economy of Freeport”, having led a similar effort on Freeport’s expiring investment incentives in 1990.
Yet he and the Government ‘refused to confirm or deny’ whether Freeport generated $100 million in revenues for the Public Treasury annually, or if the city’s ‘earnings’ exceeded government spending within the Port area.
Both assertions had been made by Mr Smith, and Dr Coakley was more forthcoming in denying the QC’s claims that Value-Added Tax (VAT) and other impositions were ‘illegal’ in Freeport.
Dr Coakley also denied that a letter from the Attorney General, saying that Mr Smith’s request for a copy of the McKinsey report was being considered, amounted to a “delaying tactic” that was intended to give the Government time to reach a decision.
He suggested that the Government’s decision to extend Freeport’s Business Licence and real property tax exemptions, which were due to expire on August 4, for six months until February 4, 2016, showed such an argument was false.
Dr Coakley added that, as emphasised by the Prime Minister, “there is still room for further consultation” on both the investment incentives and longer term reforms to the Hawksbill Creek Agreement.
Giving an overview of the committee’s work, Dr Coakley alleged: “All told, between early March to mid-May of 2015, in pursuance of its functions, the committee met with some 120 stakeholders, including civil society, manufacturers, developers, tourism operators, present and former Parliamentarians, and other professionals.
“Additionally, four Town Meetings were held across the island, at which more than 250 persons participated, and the committee received numerous position papers and submissions by individuals.”
Comments
The_Oracle 8 years, 6 months ago
The committee was a sham, cherry picking Licenses to consult. Standard Government Government practice. Many Major Licenses were avoided and not consulted with. That the G.B. Chamber president allowed himself to get sucked into colluding with the Committee by sitting on it is itself questionable. The Chamber President has the report, but is withholding it from the Business community that elected him to serve them and his board of directors. At the end of the day, the Government is paying lip service to the Licensees and public at large, as they will do what they want in any case.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID