The case for the Marriott Hotel – conclusion

Introduction
As yet, other than saying that Atlantic Hotels Inc is a public-private sector partnership, the government and its handmaiden NICIL have been silent on where the money to build a hotel in Kingston to be operated under the Marriott label will come from. We have heard about some group operating in Grenada that has run into problems in that country and have heard that some friends may be interested. The fact is we do not know. Meanwhile NICIL is proceeding with speed to identify a contractor to begin construction of the hotel.

Where indeed is the money going to come from? Last week, in part 2 of this series on the decision by President Jagdeo to build a hotel, I wrote that it would take more than investigative journalism to ascertain the labyrinthine sources from which the funds for the hotel would be derived. That it would take an enquiry with full powers to demand information and explanations. And that it would need to look into the books of the Consolidated Fund, NICIL, Guysuco, the Lottery Funds, and other unknowns at this stage.

The strategy of no systems
As this closing piece argues, the first stage in a strategy of misusing money is either to have no system or to undermine the existing system and then exploit its weaknesses. Add to the mix opaque rules such as those dealing with the Lottery Funds, spice it up with an entity that depends on you for its survival (Guysuco), have a few non-accountable entities at the ready (NICIL) and neutralise with carrots those likely to oppose (the leadership of the opposition) and have ready a sufficient number of persons who would be prepared to execute your work. It would help if the press and the public are uninformed or apathetic. When all these forces serendipitously come together, you are on top of the galaxy, with Zeus and Atlas at your side.

There are sufficient secret or hazy sources which could provide some if not all the funding for the hotel. With the role of the Leader of the Opposition becoming increasingly a sinecure, with so many prepared to do the work out of fear or favour, with the carrots dangled to emasculate individuals and groups accustomed to handouts, the government is almost guaranteed not even a whimper of opposition if it decides to use one of these hazy sources to finance the hotel.

A consolidated mess
Despite the boasts by the government, the Consolidated Fund is in a mess. In its 2008 report, the Audit Office reported that it had received confirmation from the Bank of Guyana that the government was holding in special accounts, outside of the Consolidated Fund, some $35.031 billion. But that was the only certainty. The Audit Office’s assessment of the balances held in the special accounts indicated that thirteen accounts with balances totalling approximately $7.868 billion appear to be funds that are transferable to the Consolidated Fund. Of those thirteen accounts, nine reflected static balances totalling $4.778 billion over the last five years; amounts of $10.980 billion held in Other Ministries/Departments Bank Accounts; and twenty inactive bank accounts.

The 2008 report tells of a new and an old Consolidated Fund and it would be fair to assume that the new would be an improvement on the old. Wrong again. The New Consolidated Fund bank account reflected a balance of $2.376 billion compared with an overdraft of $11.602 billion as stated in the cash book as at December 31, 2008. This represents a difference of fourteen billion dollars but was probably considered not too important and so no effort was made to reconcile the difference in the two amounts.

You would think that there would be some serious effort by the government to resolve this mess. Year after year, even as the quantum of the special funds keeps increasing, the only word coming out of the Ministry of Finance is that it is addressing these matters.

Contingencies Fund and the lottery
Then there is the Contingencies Fund provided for under the constitution and the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 which allows the Minister of Finance, on being satisfied that “an urgent, unavoidable and unforeseen need for the expenditure has arisen (a) for which no moneys have been appropriated or for which the sum appropriated is insufficient; (b) for which moneys cannot be reallocated as provided for under this Act; or (c) which cannot be deferred without injury to the public interest….” to approve a Contingencies Fund advance. This account has been ripe for systematic abuse, year after year as routine payments are made well outside the criteria set out in the law.

Increasingly it seems that the public interest is determined not by law or the technocrats but by the President and the other politicians. And in any case, if expenditure for Carifesta and Amerindian Month could qualify, then maybe with a little bit of a stretch, so could the President’s Marriott.

Then there is the President’s former favourite, the Lottery Funds. I say former because I now believe that his new favourite, based on value and opacity, is NICIL, which I will return to presently. Either as Finance Minister or as President, Mr Jagdeo has unconstitutionally and unlawfully made or authorised payments out of the Lotto Funds totalling $3.097 billion during the period 1996 to 2008. These funds are closely hidden away and spent purely at the discretion of the President on such things as $20 million given to the Commissioner of Police to acquire a steel band; paying to bring Indian cultural groups to Guyana; funding the construction of mosques; Amerindian activities; youth awards; empowerment activities, etc.

If the truth were ever to be told, we might even hear that the Lotto Funds will finance the President’s Buxton initiatives.

The PNC’s black hole
Why the government accounts are in such a mess is hard to imagine. Yes, there was a black hole ten-year period beginning in 1981 when we had no audit reports, and while that in itself was unlawful and unacceptable it did not mean that there was necessarily any major improprieties. But the deteriorating situation over the past five years or so probably has to do with the supine leadership of the political opposition; the departure of Goolsarran from the Audit Office and the quality of staff there; Jagdeo’s increasing boldness if not contempt for accountability and the total failure of the Public Accounts Committee to do any serious work.

Guysuco
This state-owned entity is now pivotal to a matter that is pivotal to a hearing of a matter by the Privileges Committee of the National Assembly. In that matter, the Speaker of the Assembly has ruled that a prima facie case has been made out against one minister of the government. The National Assembly is in recess and it is not known when the matter will come up. Both numerically and qualitatively the composition of the committee weighs heavily in favour of the minister and he may come out of it unscathed. The role of Guysuco in that matter is best left until it is dealt with, not because one attorney-at-law has said – wrongly – that it is sub judice, but for more practical reasons.

What can be said now, however, is that despite a clean audit opinion, Guysuco has not been properly accounting for its land sales. In November 2007 four hundred acres of land were transferred from the corporation to the government and in May 2008 another two hundred acres. The disposal proceeds of those lands do not appear in the books of the corporation. Nor are lands disposed to Republic Bank, GBTI and Demerara Bank.

NICIL
Where did this money go? Even if it was gifted to the government, it should have been accounted for as a distribution. It was not. One probability is that the money went to NICIL which has now replaced the Lottery Funds as the slush fund of choice. It is bigger, more opaque, more convenient and therefore more useful as a fund to be used for anything and everything. NICIL has received hundreds of millions as privatisation proceeds, including lands sold to John Fernandes Limited, GBTI and Queens Atlantic Investment Inc. It is also a rent collector and incredibly an asset fund manager to build roads for the GGMC from which it received $1.8 billion in 2007 and 2008.

The law defines most if not all of these as public moneys which should therefore be placed in the Consolidated Fund. NICIL is many things, but it is not even part of the Consolidated Fund. Its objects set out in its corporate documents do not allow it to do many of the things it purports to do. But it is convenient and, being a private, state-owned company is outside of the formal government accounting rules. The Privatisation Unit that was set up as a department of the Ministry of Finance is not even listed as a budget agency which seems to exclude it from the strictures of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act. The stage is therefore set for NICIL to do the kind of work which it has been doing for some time and with an increasing sense of impunity.

LCDS: the big one
But even NICIL may be overtaken by another vehicle to channel public moneys into questionable investments. And that is the LCDS funds. As we see with Mr Fip Motilall and the road to Amaila, such funds are already being used by the government, even before their receipt. That I fear is the wave of the future. It would not matter how many lives and jobs in forestry and mining are sacrificed, how many royalties are foregone and how many entrepreneurs and their investments are jeopardized, it is politically expedient for the government to have full control of the LCDS funds.

As a major forester described the matter, the ‘S’ in LCDS stands for sacrifice to be made by the forestry and mining sector as they are strangled by draconian regulations and the commitments by President Jagdeo to the Norwegians. Currently the income from forestry and mining flows to the operators and the government, while jobs are provided for both coastlanders and members of hinterland communities. There is a perception that the persons making the money from these sectors are not supporters of the government, and in consequence, they are dispensable and will be sacrificed to the LCDS.

LCDS funds flow directly to the government which alone decides how they will be spent. If it wants to support a particular project or person, all it has to do is put it in the context of the LCDS as in the case of Amaila and Fip Motilall. And if another project – like a hotel – is not that easy, just prefix the project with the word “green.”

Conclusion
The Office of the President has spent scores if not hundreds of millions on LCDS already. It does so without accountability and transparency. The Audit Office has turned a blind eye to that and to the misdeeds of NICIL. The government can count on the office doing the same with LCDS. And if perchance the hotel succeeds, the government can always sell its interest to a friendly partner.

The case for the Kingston hotel then has little to do with tourism and a top-of-the-line, international standards hotel. When built, it will be a monument to the extent to which egomania has gripped President Jagdeo, testimony that civil society is dead and it will explain why Guyana lags far behind even the smallest Caribbean island, barring Haiti. It will be our beacon of arrogance and attitude to spending public funds on the one hand, and the cowardice of a nation on the other.

The case for the Marriott Hotel – part 2

Introduction
Last week I wrote that the Government of Guyana through the instrumentality of President Jagdeo was about to enter the tourism sector as a major investor while simultaneously getting out of a major lucrative investment in the telecommunication sector from which it, or rather the increasingly infamous NICIL, received some $3,458,000,000 in dividends. Business Page noted that these decisions, are taken in the name of the people of Guyana, without consultation, logic or justification.

The government and its handmaiden NICIL, completely ignoring the calls by the press and the taxpayers of the country for information on the decision, have taken the investment in the hotel one stage further. The Atlantic Hotel Inc, a creature of NICIL of which NICIL’s CEO Winston Brassington and its Deputy CEO Ms Marcia Nadir-Sharma are the sole officers on record, has put out an advertisement for pre-qualification applications from contractors to undertake the construction of a hotel and entertainment complex in Georgetown.

According to the advertisement the works comprise the construction/erection of a 275,000 square foot compound that will include:

(i) A 200,000 square foot hotel facility; and

(ii) A 75,000 square foot “entertainment complex” outfitted with common services areas/amenities that will be the site for a casino, restaurant, nightclub and other unfinished spaces available for retail.

Keeping the promise
Readers will recall that Mr Jagdeo was embarrassed after an earlier attempt to have a Marriott hotel built at the same location, and after substantial sums of money had been forked out by NICIL on sewerage diversion, consultancy and other big ticket items of expenditure. Of course NICIL, which is chaired by the Minister of Finance and includes some top ministers, does not file annual returns, and with its officers failing to provide the press and the public with financial information, accurate figures on the actual amounts expended cannot be ascertained.

Jagdeo is one president who appears not to tolerate being embarrassed. The impression is conveyed that he has pursued a Marriott Hotel because that is what he had announced. One might ask, for example, why it could not have been a Hilton, or an Inter-Continental or a Holiday Inn, each of which might have offered a better deal, including making an actual investment in a hotel.

No FIA, no Procurement Commission
If any Guyanese wants to understand why Jagdeo is not interested in a Freedom of Information Act, just look at NICIL, a company that breaks the law on a daily basis. If any Guyanese wants to understand why there will be no Public Procurement Commission under Jagdeo, just look at NICIL, a company that has flouted the Procurement Act with impunity in the past.

The stage is being set once again for the flouting of the constitutional and statutory arrangements regarding procurement. One taxpayer and citizen has challenged NICIL’s role in the award of the road contract to Fip Motilall. That challenge has regrettably been stalled by a slothful court system even as Mr Motilall’s failure to start the G$3.4 billion contract on time is being tolerated and ignored by the government. In fact, the role of the government has been reduced to periodic bulletins to the nation of the location of the most tracked ship. According to Minister of Public Works and Communication Robeson Benn, the ship, like that of Antonio in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice has successfully navigated the storms, is now out of the Bermuda Triangle and should soon be home to help in delivering hydro-electric power to the nation, another of President Jagdeo’s promises.

Even if there was ever a probability that the penalty clause in the road contract would be imposed, Mr Benn has now made the case for its non-operation by a plea of act of God by Mr Motilall. From commencement to conclusion the road contract to Mr Motilall has been tainted. It characterises so much that is illegal, improper, immoral and irrational, in a haste to deliver on President Jagdeo’s promises, including the new hotel.

The birth of a hotel
First touted as a government/private sector partnership, Atlantic Hotel Inc is at this stage a 100% state-owned company. You would think then that with a strict Fiscal Management and Accountability Act the task of knowing where the government will find the billions to build the Kingston hotel is an easy one. After all, that Act defines public monies and lays down the rules for their accounting and expenditure. You could not be more mistaken.

It will take more than investigative journalism to ascertain the labyrinthine sources from which the funds for the hotel will be derived. It will take an enquiry with full powers to demand information and explanations. It needs to look into the books of the Consolidated Fund, NICIL, GuySuco, the Lottery Funds, and other unknowns at this stage. It may even reveal that some public officers should be charged for the glaring breaches of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act. But then reality in Guyana does not work in such structured, legal and proper ways.

Under Cheddi Jagan there was a Privatisation Unit which was a department of the Ministry of Finance. That proved too inhibiting and so NICIL was resurrected as a hybrid called NICIL/PU. But that also required some semblance of accountability. So the twain parted and NICIL became the front for a number of misdeeds. And now NICIL has created its own company, Atlantic Hotel Inc, a company that was born, secretly as from an unsuspected pregnancy. The child will be even more wayward than the parent. It is that child that has now placed the advertisement, apparently convinced that it could ignore section 24 of the Procurement Act. This is what that section states:

(1) Public corporations and other bodies in which the controlling interest is vested in the State may, subject to the approval of the National Board [the National Tender Board which the government uses as the substitute for the National Procurement Commission], conduct procurement according to their own rules or regulations, except that to the extent that such rules and regulations conflict with this Act or the regulations, this Act and the regulations shall prevail.

(2) If funds are received from the Treasury for a specific procurement, then the corporation or other body shall be obliged to follow the procedure set out in this Act and the regulations.

(3) Employees of any procurement entity who by their job description are responsible for procurement shall declare their assets to the Integrity Commission.

The Procurement Act, as readers of this column are aware, covers not only the procurement of goods but also services, including construction services. Maybe the two executive officers and the directors of NICIL wrongly believe that by the creation of a subsidiary they are insulating that subsidiary from the reaches of the law. That by the funds for the hotel coming from its parent NICIL and not the Treasury, the provisions of the Procurement Act will not apply. This may not be how the nation sees it or how the law was intended to operate. But the government has other motives and the force of power on their side. That is all they need in practice, if not in law.

Breach of faith and the CIOG
Before I consider the possible sources of the funding of the hotel some general points seem to be in order. Under this new dispensation of direct government involvement in the economy, no business is safe from unfair competition by the government. The government gave valuable land and support to Buddy’s which realised a vast capital gain by selling out to Princess. Now the Princess, under foreign ownership, is criticised by President Jagdeo as a below par hotel, deserving of competition from the government. Unlike Robert Badal, a Guyanese, the Princess Hotel would feel intimidated to challenge the government on bad faith. But would they have paid such a vast sum for Buddy’s Hotel had they known in advance of the impending Marriott? And indeed would Badal have bought the Pegasus if he had known that he would sooner rather than later be facing stiff competition from the government?

Would any investor feel confident enough to even approach the government with any business ideas and initiatives if it cannot trust the government to keep information confidential, or worse, to use it for its own benefit and against the interest of the investor, possibly as a competitor? Competition is of course necessary and beneficial to the consumer, but that must at a minimum assume that the competition will be fair and proper. The PSC cannot criticise the government on the competition issue only on internal flights because the GDF may affect the business of one of its leaders. It must take a position on principle in relation to all businesses. Its failure to address the issue on principle rather than on the basis of personal interest will seriously affect the country’s image as a credible host country for investment.

That can hardly be the focus and intent of the expensive National Competitive Strategy on which the government spends billions of dollars of borrowed funds and for which the Chairman of the Private Sector Commission is the principal cheerleader.

The raison d’etre of the Kingston hotel has hardly been justified to a skeptical Guyanese public, but it seems that big-time gambling is the new strategy of the Jagdeo administration. The CIOG has arrived at a convenient relationship with President Jagdeo while the Christian community has given the appearance of being more concerned about individual lifestyle choices than by policies that will affect the nation.

To be continued

The case for the Marriott Hotel

The government through the instrumentality of President Jagdeo, is about to enter the tourism sector as a major investor. At the same time, the government is getting out of the telecommunication sector, or at least one of its major investments in the sector. Of course these will be done in the name of the people of Guyana, without consultation, logic or justification. Not that President Jagdeo feels any reason or compulsion to consult with the Private Sector Commission, a large segment of the trade union movement, or with the National Assembly. One leader of the PSC had said that he supported everything done by President Jagdeo. One of the trade unionists has placed a halo over him. The many would-be leaders of the PPP/C are silent, perhaps unable to understand the implications of the personality culture and egomania which now shape economic decisions. Or perhaps they quietly relish the thought of leading a country where the people can be bribed with their own taxes; where state property can be disposed to whomsoever the government chooses; and where an opportunity to visit the Office of the President or dine at State House are now legal tender, in exchange for every scrap of transparency, decency, financial probity, the morality of the people and the soul of the nation.

At their most basic, the business decisions of the Jagdeo administration are not difficult to understand. A hydro-electricity power licence and a road contract to Fip Motilall, single sourcing of billions of dollars of drugs for the national health system and in the first instance illegal tax concessions to the Ramroops, land for hotel housing developer Buddy Shivraj all helped to support and enrich friends at the expense of taxpayers. All the aforementioned persons have many things in common, including class and their closeness to the government, and have succeeded partly because of the generosity of the government to them and the relationship they enjoy with its leader. They have no cause for complaint, and on the contrary would wish if things could just remain the same.

They might even be ‘third term-ites.’

Pegasus v Marriott
The problem for Robert Badal and his Pegasus Hotel is that he has been too independent, too courageous and too successful. Worse is that he not only succeeded in spite of the government, but has outmanoeuvred it at every interaction. That is a grievous fault and grievously must he pay for it. The government accuses Mr. Badal of improperly acquiring control of Guyana Stockfeeds Limited while Jagdeo lashes out at the poor service of the Guyana Pegasus and its water quality. But words are not enough to hurt the Pegasus so that sticks and stones must now be called into action, in the name of competition and tourism.

As Business Page recalls it, some years ago the directors of Guyana Stockfeeds Limited announced a rights issue of shares under which new shares were offered proportionately to existing shareholders. Under the terms of the offer, shares not taken up by any of the shareholders could then be offered to the other shareholders. Whatever may have been Mr Badal’s motive, such an arrangement is not unusual in equity transactions, and indeed was a mechanism often used by Banks DIH Limited. At the time of the rights issue, the government was not interested in further involvement in direct private sector investment and did not take up the shares to which it was entitled. Had the government taken up its allocation the shareholding would have remained unchanged. Mr Badal took up the shares and consolidated his control and management of the company.

No one knows whether the government considered the option of taking up the shares which were effectively offered at a discount, and then making a profit by selling them. No one knows too why the government did not honour its own White Paper on privatisation and ensure that 10% of the company’s shares were reserved for its employees. What we do know is that now that those failures have backfired and now that the President’s friends have failed in their bid to buy the Pegasus, it is time to take up the old fire rage and go after Mr Badal. Ironically, the charge led by the President is taken up by NICIL, the company with one of the worst governance records in the country. For more than a decade it has failed to meet its statutory obligations to file annual reports. It is a closed shop, more tightly secured than Stockfeeds can ever hope to be, despite being a taxpayer-owned company. It is a vehicle for siphoning off state assets, selling them and using public money without parliamentary approval. It operates with all the characteristics of a slush fund under the control of a handful of persons with no demonstrated commitment to accountability and the law under which they operate.

P(rivatisation)Unit
But they are powerful and can act with impunity, which perhaps is the subliminal message of their email address – punit! Having failed to file reports annually with the Registrar of Companies for all those years without suffering the statutory sanctions by the Registrar, NICIL and its CEO Winston Brassington and Deputy CEO Marcia Nadir-Sharma were able in one day last September to file and have incorporated the Atlantic Hotel Inc, which to some rings a troubling chord with the Queen’s Atlantic Inc, the company for which NICIL and the government were prepared to change the concessions laws of the country. From all appearances, Atlantic Hotel Inc will be the owner of the proposed Marriott-run Hotel that will challenge Pegasus for clientele. While Mr Jagdeo would wish us to believe that the project is a government-private sector partnership, the incorporator and sole director of AHI is Winston Brassington, the Company Secretary is Marcia Nadir-Sharma who is also its legal officer. The government, it seems, thinks it entirely appropriate for the state to operate like the most secretive private company and sees no contradiction or irony of calling out Mr Badal on governance.

Mr Ramesh Dookhoo, Chairman of the Private Sector Commission, an organisation dedicated to the promotion of the private sector was able in one breath to support the government’s decision to get involved in the tourism sector while calling for more but unspecified information. There was sufficient ambiguity in Mr Dookhoo’s statement to leave everyone guessing without incurring the displeasure of the government, one of the apparent overriding if unstated goals of the PSC.

Poor service
Over the past couple of weeks I have witnessed the poor standard of service by the country’s tour operators and domestic airlines. It is shocking to see how they treat their customers. They accept bookings for flights and then cancel because they do not have enough passengers to make the flight economic. No one visiting Guyana for a few days wants to experience the wait at Timehri while the operator decides whether or not to bother with the flight. If any person wishes to guarantee a flight to Kaieteur, then they had better charter the plane from one of these very service providers who enjoy lucrative space at national facilities financed by the taxpayers of the country.

A decade after the launch of the Tourism Authority visitors and residents alike find it impossible to access basic information on where to go, how to get there, what it will cost and what may be the facilities and amenities that are available. Visitors’ security and safety are vital considerations but it does not seem that this is evident to the government. One cannot but help noticing too that absent from all of the discussion and exchanges about the need for hotels is the Minister of Tourism Manniram Prashad, a long-time friend of the President. Mr Prashad was for several years a director of the Guyana Pegasus and both his political role and well as his experience with the Pegasus would have qualified him to make an informed contribution.

Irrational and illogical
But when decisions are taken on grounds that are as irrational and illogical as they are in the case of Amaila and the new hotel, standard policy formulation and experience become irrelevant and counter-productive to the motives that drive the decisions in the first place. No longer is there a natural role and obligation on the government to provide the infrastructure for the development of the sector, and for the private sector to invest in hardware, jobs and services, and to pay taxes to fund development. It is, like the case of the withdrawal of government ads from the Stabroek News, act first and justify later. The cheerleading band stands at the ready – all set to go. By the time the falsity of the reason is exposed, it is no longer important, and in any case, new and perhaps more sinister motives will have driven more blatantly irrational actions that arouse more but fleeting interest. And so the cycle goes on, despite changes, as in the case of the PSC.

In the days leading up to the Cricket World Cup the government successfully pushed the private sector into hotel property development. The efforts were so successful that there in now over-capacity in the sector. That makes the case for new plant hard to sell, so the President wants to figuratively knock down what exists and invent reasons for a special class of hotel. It seems logical that if such a need existed, the private sector would have responded. They have the flexibility and the profit motive. They know that in tourism the product that is sold is first the country. If someone tells you he is going on holiday s/he tells you the country of destination, not the hotel. Let us first sell Guyana and its rich eco-tourism potential in our many falls and waterways, our mountains and valleys, our flora and fauna. Put money and imagination into the Tourism Authority and the soft infrastructure in the sector. Those will be strong incentives for the private sector to invest in new plant.

Conclusion
Let us recall that the President justified the introduction of casinos as the need to attract tourists. Let him now tell us how many new tourists actually visit Guyana because of the casino and how many are Guyanese who hold foreign passports. But no, we have moved on and the spurious reasons are now irrelevant. It may not be too late for the Economic Services Sector Committee to request that the government present its case for its investment in the hotel.

Mr Dookhoo probably wants the government to present the nation with a financial justification for the [mis]/use of taxpayers’ money for the financial adventures of the President. If so, he needs to be more direct. But the PSC needs to ask a more fundamental question: what is the government’s policy with respect to entering into direct competition with businesses generally and Guyanese businesses in particular. Today it is hotels, tomorrow it is telecommunication, the next day it is agro-industry, etc. The environment becomes increasingly uncertain.

Amendments to NBS Act forced through the National Assembly – conclusion

Today I conclude my examination of the amendments to the New Building Society Limited Act passed by the National Assembly two Thursdays ago despite the arguments from the opposition members and the pleas from the members of the Society for consultations to take place. With the government’s overall majority in the National Assembly, passage became a formality.

In terms of building societies, Guyana is a unique animal. It does not have a generic Building Society Act like the UK, Jamaica and Trinidad. This country’s sole building society enjoys a huge monopoly and because the NBS is a creature of parliament, the government exerts over it an unchallenged and powerful influence. The government can amend the NBS Act at will, without any consultation with the members or the directorate of the Society. On the occasion of the NBS Amendment Bill 2010, the government indecently ignored the members and is proceeding to implement unilateral changes to the laws under which the members of the Society are forced to operate. It is hard to see how the changes will enhance governance and transparency in the Society, but we will wait and see.

I will continue my clause-by-clause examination of the amendments before looking at some of the general principles governing building societies’ legislation.

Clause 6
Several members have pointed out on more than occasion that the Society has been in breach of section 7 of the act which in its proviso restricts the amount of borrowings outstanding, whether by way of deposit or loan, to two-thirds of the amounts lent on mortgage. What the amendment does is allow for the two-thirds to be varied by the Bank of Guyana, conceivably to more than 100%. That would be reckless and against all the principles of financial structuring of a building society. Perhaps the architects of the amendment were more concerned about correcting a misunderstanding that has persisted over decades, and in the process, it seems that the object of the original provision was lost.

A building society has to ensure that of its total assets, there must be sufficient liquidity to enable it to meet its liabilities as they fall due. If a disproportionate amount is kept in mortgages and other long-term assets, it would be in danger of being unable to liquidate a sufficient amount to meet demands as they fell due. A building society is not like a limited liability company where there is a share capital which can only be withdrawn in narrow circumstances.

New Buildings Society
A fine balance therefore has to be maintained between short-term and long-term assets depending on the range and scale of the society’s business and the character and composition of its assets and liabilities. The UK legislation seeks to draw the line by providing that the assets held by the society to enable it to meet its liabilities as they arise should not exceed 33⅓% of its total assets and must be composed of assets of an authorised character, and no others (emphasis mine).

Unfortunately, in its haste to pass legislation, these fundamental considerations were completely overlooked. In the longer term, this could have serious repercussions for the NBS.

Clause 9
When I first saw the proposed amendment (a) to amend section 11 of the act, I thought it was either an editing or drafting mistake. Section 11 of the original act vested in the Board the management and affairs of the business of the Society. Deleting the word “management” and replacing it with the word “policies,” we have the position that the policies of the Society are vested in the board. That is as absurd as it gets, but clearly Minister Irfaan Ali did recognise that policies are not vested but are formulated by the Board and that yes, the management is vested in them for which proper discharge they are responsible. He would have saved us the comical justification if only he had familiarized himself with the corresponding provision in the Companies Act, 1991.

Section 59 of that act holds the director responsible for directing the management of the business and affairs of the company. Section 96 of the act imposes on the company’s directors, obligations to act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interest of the company and to exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances.

The NBS is a financial institution and one would expect its directors to have higher standards of obligations than those of the directors of the run-of-the-mill company. Sadly, the danger is that with existing mechanisms in place, the Society will have to wait a very long time before it is served by independent-minded directors.

Clause 10
This clause virtually abolishes the right of members to requisition a special meeting in the Society. Ever since the formation of the NBS in 1940, 10% of the membership or 50 members, whichever is less, could have requisitioned a special meeting, stating the object for which the meeting is being requisitioned. Under the amendment, such a meeting can only be called by 10% of the entire membership, currently estimated at 100,000 members, which means it would require 10,000 members to sign a requisition for such a meeting.

The government side made much of the fact that the size of the membership has grown since 1940 and the change is therefore justified by circumstances. They also argued that 10% is the percentage required for the requisitioning of a special meeting under the Companies Act. Such arguments are not only wrong but also ignore the importance of minority protection. Let us deal with the first argument. In the UK where some building societies have as many as a million members, 100 members can requisition a special meeting.

The Minister of Finance in arguing the case referred to section 135 of the Companies Act 1991 and was correct as far as the 10% was concerned. He did not, however, point out that in the case of the Companies Act it is 10% of the share capital. This is so fundamental that the Minister should have been more forthcoming with the facts. It is wrong and disingenuous to compare the Companies Act – which is explicitly excluded from application to the NBS – with the NBS Act. A more reasonable comparison would have been with the Co-operative Society Act Cap.88:01 since the NBS is a mutual, co-operative society formed under statute. Under the Co-operative Society Act twenty-five persons may requisition a special meeting.

Clause 14: Repeal of section 19 of the Principal Act
One of the most infamous amendments was the deletion of section 19 of the principal act which allowed 100 persons to apply to the minister to appoint an accountant or actuary to inspect the books or an inspector to examine into and report on the affairs of the Society. That right is now being completely removed. No one argued that because the NBS would now come under the Bank of Guyana the provision was superfluous. But since they were drawing comparisons with the Companies Act, they may have wished to consider that Section 496 of the Companies Act allows for an application by one person for the appointment of an Inspector. Or that section 506 allows for a single shareholder or debenture holder, or the Registrar to apply to the court for an investigation order.

Sections 496 and 506 apply to all companies including those financial institutions supervised by the Bank of Guyana under the Financial Institutions Act, so there really was no justification for the removal of section 19.

Clause 20: exclusion from taxes, reserve requirements
By virtue of clause 20, the NBS will not be subject to a reserve requirement. My understanding is that the basis for this exemption is that such a requirement would have carried up the cost of funds, an argument equally applicable to all financial institutions. Again I think this is short sighted and ill informed, since the reserve requirement helps to meet any suspected run on the financial institution and is the next best security for depositors. While exemptions from taxes are justified in the case of mutual entities, to give the NBS such carte blanche exemption from the reserve requirement applicable to deposit-taking financial institutions is to court bad management.

Conclusion
There was a need for the NBS Act to be modernised and amended and to enhance governance in the NBS. The existing rules which allow the directors to entrench themselves by the abuse of proxies, no age/term limits for directors, pensions paid to directors, and general corporate governance weaknesses would be considered inappropriate and unacceptable in the 21st century and dangerous in a financial institution. But these ills are not addressed. More importantly, it was necessary to silence the minority.

Amendments to NBS Act forced through the National Assembly

Introduction
That the Government used its majority in the National Assembly to push through major amendments to the New Building Society Act was not surprising. That Messrs Winston Murray and Khemraj Ramjattan so persuasively argued the case for the PPP/C to reflect on the implications of a piece of legislation was commendable.

That a debate on a technical bill could descend into real gutter remarks was I am told, not unusual. What was disappointing and regrettable was the attitude of those on the government side, the little or no research reflected in their presentations and their failure to understand, or total disregard of, the co-operative nature of the NBS or what corporate governance means.

That the Governor of the central bank and one of his staff were in the Chamber suggests that they were invited by the Government. None of the directors of the NBS including its CEO made any appearance during the entire four or so hours it took before the vote.

Yet, even in the absence of an invitation, it would have been both necessary and helpful for the directors to attend the debate on what is, to date, one of the most fundamental changes to the Act under which they operate.

Their non-attendance did not surprise, as the directors have consistently belittled the contribution and views of their own members. They did not seem to be interested in the views of the legislators either.

Harlots and hypocrites
The exchanges in the National Assembly were peppered with negatives like “harlot”, “bullies”, “instigators” and “hypocrites” instead of capital adequacy, loan provisioning, corporate governance and minority protection. Those who referred to the Companies Act to support their case were at the same time economical about the provisions of the Act which they selectively chose some sections from while ignoring others. Their response to the suggestion that good governance, as does the Companies Act, seeks to protect the interest of the minority was that “the will of the majority must prevail.”

The self-styled NBS Concerned Members used almost every possible means and opportunity to engage the decision-makers and to advise caution. Once I received a copy of the Bill, I tried calling the Chairman of the Board Dr. Nanda Gopaul. His secretary wanted to know the reason for the call. I explained to her that I was calling on behalf of the members of the NBS and wanted to speak with him urgently on the proposed amendments. I never heard from her again. My attempt to contact by telephone former Chairman Moen McDoom, S.C. was similarly ignored while PPP/C General Secretary Donald Ramotar treated our correspondence with equal discourtesy.

The Secretary/Director of the NBS refused to meet with Cyril Walker and me when we took a requisition to him signed by scores of members for the calling of a special meeting. We tried to lobby the parliamentarians as they went into the National Assembly. Prime Minister Sam Hinds said we were too late. He seemed unaware of the fact that at the time of the debate, the Bill had not yet been published in the Official Gazette, as is required under the Standing Orders. Notwithstanding that this may not be part of the parliamentary procedures, I believe that the Speaker should have taken a stand on that basis.

Bullies and cowards
I also believe that the Speaker should have intervened when Minister Nadir who was labouring to make a constructive and informed contribution to the debate took the opportunity to attack “the accountant, attorney-at-law and social commentator” for trying to bully the NBS’s board. In an aside, the learned Attorney General typically rejoined “not social commentator, instigator”.

Many would say that it is they who were the bullies and cowards for attacking without naming a person knowing that the person could not reply there. It was a disgusting demonstration of the abuse of power which has come to characterise our national politics.
It did not strike the government benches as odd that they took offence at the factual identification of Drs. Prem Misir and Gobind Ganga, and Mr. Paul Bhim as directors of the Bank of Guyana but applauded when members of the NBS were repeatedly being described as “bullies’ and a “tiny minority”.

The party prevails
During the break one member of the ruling party volunteered to Mr. Walker and me that he recognised the validity of some of the opposition concerns and would recommend that the Bill be taken to a Select Committee. And one leading member of the government admitted that the amendments as drafted might be inappropriate to a building society. But when the time came to stand up and be counted, those views were forgotten.

The fact that members had used legal and proper means to have the amendments considered at a meeting of the NBS, and the strong and constructive arguments by the opposition, mattered for nothing.

So in the end, subject to presidential assent and publication in the Official Gazette the bill that brings the New Building Society under the Financial Institutions Act will also remove several rights which members of the Society have enjoyed for seventy years.
There may be some complications. What the members did by their requisition was to ask that there be prior consultation on proposed changes which fundamentally reduce their rights as members.

Effectively, they are asking that if there are to be changes to the rules under which they joined the NBS in the first place, and if the goal post on the field on which they have been playing, are to be moved, then at least they should be consulted.
Would the President now try to pre-empt the holding of the meeting by assenting to and publishing the Act, giving the directors an excuse that the requisition has been overtaken by events? And if he does, the Concerned Members would have to consider their own response.

The Bill
In their requisition the members drew to the attention of the Board that they have always advocated bringing the Society under the supervisory control of the Bank of Guyana. In welcoming this proposal they also noted that they supported the amendments introduced by at least twelve of the clauses in the Bill.

They did however express “serious concerns” with certain other proposals which they highlighted and discussed in their requisition. Here are some of the more significant concerns.

Clause 5 (2)
The members noted that having regard to the nature of the Society’s business, great care ought to be taken in the wholesale application of all the provisions and guidelines of the FIA. The Financial Institutions Act 1995 was designed for banking and other financial business, not co-operatives, credit unions and similar organisations. In Jamaica for example, while the Bank of Jamaica regulates all financial institutions including cooperative societies and building societies, in the case of building societies, they do so under specific legislation. The same is also true of Trinidad and Tobago.

Jamaica recognises the special and unique characteristics of building societies and has separate primary and subsidiary legislation governing such societies. So that in that country, there is The Building Societies Act, 1897 which was last amended in 2004 and there are The Bank of Jamaica (Building Societies) Regulations, 1995 (amended 2005) and The Building Societies (Licences) Regulations, 1995.

This is also true of Trinidad and Tobago and the UK where there is a Buildings Society Act under which building societies are formed and regulated.

We different
The approach taken in Guyana is to treat the NBS as an entrenched monopoly. Does this mean that if another group wanted to set up a building society it must do so by asking for it to be set up by legislation? Corporate law has moved away from charter companies and there is a generic companies act that sets out the legal framework for the incorporation of companies.

Members are concerned that there had been no statement from the directors on whether they had been consulted by the government and on the impact on the Society of the FIA and its several Supervision Guidelines. Members expressed the view that the operations of the NBS could adversely affect the Society. In this regard the Board may have wished to consult with the Bank of Guyana and the other entities subject to Supervision Guideline No 5 – Loan Portfolio Review, Classification, Provisioning and Other related Requirements as to its effect. And Supervision Guideline No 4 – Capital Adequacy Ratio would be similarly relevant.

It does not appear that transitional arrangements allowed in the new clause 7 A apply to loan provisioning and this could impact on the Society’s mode of operations and results for the current and future years.

To be continued