Airport Blue Ribbon Panel Terms Of Reference

January 20, 2017

The Ministry of Finance today [Jan 20] released the Terms of Reference for the Blue Ribbon Panel, which is currently reviewing the Airport Redevelopment Project.

“The terms of reference sets out the objective, background, scope, deliverables and timing of this review,” the Ministry said.

“This Blue Ribbon Panel will provide an additional independent evaluation of the Airport Redevelopment Project and expects to present their conclusion to the Minister of Finance at the end of January.”

Live video replay of the Finance Minister announcing the Blue Ribbon panel earlier this month:

“The panel is chaired by Mr. Malcolm Butterfield, a retired managing director at KPMG, and includes Mr. Craig Simmons, Economics Senior Lecturer at the Bermuda College, Mr. Gil Tucker, retired Chairman of Ernst & Young Ltd., Mr. Barclay Simmons, a Managing Partner of ASW Law and Chairman of Butterfield Bank, Mr. Anthony Joaquin, retired Partner of Ernst & Young and Chairman of HSBC Bermuda and Ms. Caroline Foulger retired partner of Price Waterhouse Coopers.”

The Blue Ribbon Panel Terms of Reference are below [PDF here]

airplane click here copy (1)

Read More About

Category: All, News, Politics

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. wahoo says:

    Keep on truckin’ OBA. You notice that the plp are more about conflict than construct as usual but needs to be pointed out non the less.

  2. Community First says:

    This airport project has demonstrated a very interesting communications approach that models traditional systems that are shifting through legal and very public challenges.

    A small group of mostly men decide on a strategy that ignores their communications advice, impacts our community and then announces it without wide or inclusive consultation, or the appearance of care and compassion. Comments are made about how complex this plan is – too difficult to communicate to the average Bermudian, documents are kept secret and public resistance is ignited.

    As the saying goes: When leaders treat you like they don’t care – believe them.

    Months of stonewalling that erodes trust and public confidence yields to incremental disclosures until finally a group of respected independent accountants are given the option of reviewing the secret documents. Only after respected accountants have challenged the math and figures in the public domain!

    Imagine if when faced with a project of this magnitude you started with public engagement about the airport, created participatory and inclusive gatherings to listen and share openly with our Bermuda community? Imagine if you started with communications as an essential element and connecting to an informed public as a goal that had to be earned – not dictated? Imagine if you started with a Blue Ribbon Panel to oversee this information and process of community engagement? Imagine if our leaders started with humility, transparency and vulnerability – not arrogance?

    The public will to be consulted and involved is bending our leaders in their direction and will continue to do so. It may continue to be hijacked by political opportunism and that is the risk that our traditional male dominated power structures continue to take as exampled by the Bermuda Airport Plan, Pathway to Status…

    • aceboy says:

      The public has been consulted, on numerous occasions. Debate on the airport has not happened because the Opposition disrupts it.

      Most of what you are complaining about appears to be from 1998 – 2012. The forgotten era of government contracts like Berkley, the Cruise Terminal, TCD, Grand Atlantic, the Court Building…when there was nothing but arrogance and shenanigans.

      I don’t recall posts from you back in those days. You’ll find plenty from me.

  3. Average Bermudian says:


  4. clearasmud says:

    According to the Minister the committee is invited to ” form its independent view of whether the deal is reasonable and fair.” compared to what? Both of these terms are very difficult to prove without a definition of what is meant by them because they are very vague and not at all objective! As I said before it would have been better to have Deloitte review the issues that they identified in their original review to opine on if the have bee adequately addressed. Those issues included the business case and the value for money proposition.