Comments on: Fiscal Responsibility Panel Annual Assessment

By: clearasmud

clearasmud — Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:41:29 +0000

The scope of the two reports are very different and it might have been better for Deloitte to be asked to opine on whether the identified gaps had been adequately covered rather than ask a second company to opine on a perceived value for money.

By: Rich

Rich — Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:06:23 +0000

Some have suggested that the panel assess the airport project. But what’s the point?

Last year, the UK Government commissioned Deloitte to provide a preliminary report on the project, identifying gaps and deficiencies in the proposal, against which the Government of Bermuda was to work, plugging in the gaps so to speak.

This year, the Government then commissioned a Value for Money Assessment prepared by Steer Davies Gleave, which is a consultancy firm out of the UK with transport and aviation expertise. As a subject matter expert, their opinion really should be given deference.

(Incidentally, both reports were made public.)

This, however, was not enough for the Opposition, who then shifted the goal posts and called for a review by the Aud-Gen.

Interestingly, the issue with the panel is the same as the Aud-Gen – neither really has large project management experience or expertise, either in general or pertaining to airports, with their respective specialties being macroeconomic policy and accounting. The panel would likely decline to perform the task.

Even if they did, what would happen if they provided a favourable opinion, as per Steer Davies Gleave? Opponents to the project would question their expertise, allege that they were biased for having been commissioned by the Govt, etc. So once again, you will see more shifting of the goal posts. No one will be satisfied.

At this juncture, there is just no further use for reports and appraisals. People’s views for or against the airport are more or less crystallized. The Govt just needs to commit to the project or back out. The longer that the decision is put off, the more likely it will cost time, money and resources to be in a negotiating posture with CCC / Aecon.

By: But would the results be accepted

But would the results be accepted — Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:36:00 +0000

Sadly the current actions by the vocal minority have very little to do with the airport and more to do with an agenda that they are being used to support.

I would however favor this group having a look at the deal and commenting on it through the lens of our need for an updated gateway facility and how we finance it given the current precarious finanical position Bermuda finds itself in given the increased debt load established by the previous and current administrations.

By: Aware

Aware — Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:04:34 +0000

We don’t have a choice whether or not to build a new airport if we want to be a tourist and international business destination. However, based on the heat this topic has created, maybe a review by the FRP is worth considring. Tight remit, just “is this the best way to finance the new airport in our current financial situation”?

By: clearasmud

clearasmud — Mon, 12 Dec 2016 21:06:42 +0000

I wonder if they were asked if it is fiscally responsible to be contemplating building an airport at this time when we face so many increased risk.

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 12 Dec 2016 21:01:55 +0000

The OBA is still continuing the debt trend, unacceptable. TRIM BACK THE CIVIL SERVICE. I’m tired of my taxes increasing to keep people in jobs who protest more than they work!!!

By: Vote for Me

Vote for Me — Mon, 12 Dec 2016 20:51:45 +0000

If the panel’s independence is agreed, perhaps they should be given a specific remit to review the proposed Airport Deal and inform the general public what the deal entails.

No political bias one way or the other, just an objective summary and analysis of the deal.

By: NCM

NCM — Mon, 12 Dec 2016 19:26:32 +0000

Nice to see the OBA continue with their agenda of transparency. Simply put, they have been the most transparent government in Bermuda’s history – despite what the opposition and their supporters would have you believe.

By: serengeti

serengeti — Mon, 12 Dec 2016 19:20:46 +0000

What happened to the proposals last year that were being phased in? There was supposed to be a service tax, and a tax on local company dividends. If they have been dropped and replaced with other ideas, why? Taxing local company dividends is a no-brainer. It’s a well-known payroll tax loophole for well-paid professionals.