Members of the Public Accounts Committee are at loggerheads over whether chairman David Burt should have ordered a senior civil servant to provide them with the full agreement on the new airport.

Correspondence obtained by The Royal Gazette reveals that shadow finance minister Mr Burt told PAC members about the summons issued to financial secretary Anthony Manders at a private meeting on April 7, prompting an e-mail from government backbencher Susan Jackson the next day in which she said she was offended and “taken aback” by his actions.

Meanwhile, finance minister Bob Richards told this newspaper last night: “The committee looks like it’s becoming dysfunctional. [The chairman’s] political biases are clear. If you don’t have the committee’s approval, then it becomes partisan.”

Ms Jackson sent her e-mail to Mr Burt on April 8 and copied it to all committee members. She wrote: “It offends me that members were not made aware of your intention to serve this subpoena. None of us had an opportunity to provide our thoughts or give our support or refusal to proceed.”

Ms Jackson said she wanted to table a motion for the summons to be withdrawn at a brief in-camera meeting of the PAC before its next public meeting on April 14.

She added: “This should come as no surprise. I was taken aback at yesterday’s meeting and remain resolute as a matter of principle.”

Mr Burt replied that her proposed motion was “out of order”, stating he had power under the Parliament Act 1957 to issue a summons, and had kept Randy Horton, the Speaker of the House, abreast of his actions.

“Parliamentary oversight is one of the cornerstones of a functioning parliament,” wrote Mr Burt. “As I explained in our meeting yesterday, there is a reason why a member of the Opposition chairs the Public Accounts Committee for issues just like this, where the majority of the committee representing the government would attempt to block transparency and oversight.

“I have handled this matter as discreetly as possible and I have practised restraint thus far.

“However, the seeming willingness of the OBA majority on the PAC in looking to attempt to block the PAC from exercising its oversight responsibilities is extremely troubling.”

The Bermuda Government entered into a $250 million deal with the Canadian Commercial Corporation for a new airport terminal last August.

Mr Richards put the agreement into the public domain earlier this year — but only 33 pages of it. The full contract is “200 and some pages”, according to testimony given to the PAC last year by accountant general Curtis Stovell, and includes nine schedules explaining how the deal will work.

A transcript of a November 19 meeting of the PAC reveals that government whip Cole Simons proposed the committee endeavour to “secure a copy of the agreement that has been executed” and “get a copy of those agreements that have been signed to date”. Committee members agreed unanimously to the motion.

Opposition member Wayne Furbert proposed Mr Manders be called before the committee and that motion too was agreed unanimously.

On April 14, the planned meeting of the PAC was abandoned when none of the OBA members attended, so a quorum could not be reached. Mr Manders was there with a lawyer.

Mr Richards said later at a press conference that the issue of Mr Burt’s summons being “not valid” played a part in why government members didn’t show up.

He added last night that two government members had prior commitments at the Ag Show and there were other scheduling conflicts. He said PAC members were supposed to leave their party allegiances at the door of the bipartisan parliamentary committee and work together.

“You can’t have a chairman issuing a summons,” said Mr Richards, himself a former PAC chairman. “The summons was specifically for the schedules. He did not get agreement from the committee on that.”

Acting Opposition leader Mr Burt dismissed the claim that he had moved unilaterally, pointing to the transcript of the November 19 meeting.

“For him to say that I acted alone in this case is a lie,” he said. “It was a decision made in a PAC meeting heard in a public sitting. He knows the PAC requested this.”

Mr Simons told The Royal Gazette yesterday that his motion on November 19 was made before Mr Richards released 33 pages of the agreement — and he was now satisfied that the PAC had all the paperwork it needed to scrutinise the deal.

“At that point, I didn’t know what the agreement consisted of and so we were talking in circles at that time. I got up and said ...‘we don’t know what we are talking about. It’s all speculation’. That came out before it was tabled in the House of Assembly.”

Mr Simons said he supported the finance minister’s refusal to let the PAC or the public see the schedules at this stage of “active negotiations”.

The e-mail chain obtained by this newspaper reveals Mr Burt telling Ms Jackson that “numerous informal requests” for the schedules “were made and ignored”. The Royal Gazette had a freedom of information request for the schedules turned down by the Ministry of Finance.

Mr Simons said: “I will do nothing to compromise the deal that is being worked on at this time. What [Mr Richards] has tabled in the 33 pages before the House of Assembly is enough for us to have a good idea.”

He said when Mr Burt told the committee he had issued the summons, “we all didn’t believe him, because the committee didn’t know it had been issued”.

He added: “He had issued it of his own volition. The chairman did it without the approval of the PAC and then what made matters worse was that he issued a second summons [on April 14] when there was no quorum.”

The OBA MP cited section 37 of the standing orders of the House of Assembly, which he said prevented any powers of the committee being delegated to any one member, including the chairman. Mr Burt said last week that Mr Simons and Ms Jackson did not give advance notice that they would not attend the April 14 PAC meeting.

Mr Simons said he sent a message on April 13 to the full committee, explaining that an unexpected and urgent professional commitment had come up, otherwise he “absolutely” would have attended.

The e-mail correspondence we obtained shows Ms Jackson responding to Mr Burt’s statement that he had the power to issue the summons under the Parliament Act.

“I understand what the legislation says and the chair’s power,” she wrote. “It remains the respectable course to inform members prior to carrying out such powers. As a team, we must do what we can to sustain and improve the credibility of the PAC.

“Again, this is a matter of principle. Politics aside, if you’d consulted your committee members we may have come up with a strategy that would have produced a more productive result.”

Opposition MP Lovitta Foggo interjected at that point, replying: “When do we recognise that at least in PAC we are never suppose[d] to be partisan. In any case the chair does not need a consensus to operate.

“PAC has never tried to stop the chairman from exercising his duty in the past. You cannot override the chair by vote or otherwise. Perhaps the chair should consider running the meetings as former chairs have, then this entire line of conversation would not be taking place.

“The chair has exercised an option that he is entitled to do and that needed to be done. If civil servants and the executive don’t respect us as parliamentary officers it is incumbent upon us all to ensure that we are taken seriously and, if a summons is required to make people respond as they should, then so be it ... Let’s hope the FS and his Minister follow the law. We need to do our jobs.”

•The PAC’s next public meeting is on Wednesday (April 27) at 2.30pm in the Senate Chamber at the Cabinet Building on Front Street.

The PAC e-mail correspondence

On 8 April Susan Jackson wrote:

Good morning Chair,

Following your subpoena announcement at the PAC meeting yesterday afternoon, I’ve had time to process your actions and I respectfully table the below for a vote before our next public meeting. It offends me that members were not made aware of your intention to serve this subpoena. None of us had an opportunity to provide our thoughts or give our support or refusal to proceed. Accept this e-mail as notification that I am tabling a motion to withdraw this subpoena. In addition, please make arrangements for a brief in-camera meeting before the next public meeting to take the vote. This should come as no surprise. I was taken aback at yesterday’s meeting and remain resolute as a matter of principle.

Good Morning MP Jackson,

Parliamentary oversight is one of the cornerstones of a functioning parliament. As I explained in our meeting yesterday there is a reason why a member of the Opposition chairs the Public Accounts Committee for issues just like this, where the majority of the committee representing the government would attempt to block transparency and oversight. I have handled this matter as discretely as possible, and I have practiced restraint thus far; however the seeming willingness of the OBA majority on the PAC in looking to attempt to block the PAC from exercising its oversight responsibilities is extremely troubling.

To be clear:

1) Last year the PAC, by unanimous consent, asked for these documents to be produced

2) Numerous informal requests were made and ignored

3) The Parliament Act 1957 gives the power to issue summons to the Chairman

4) The summons has been issued, and the FS has acknowledged the summons

Your proposed motion is out of order and if you have an issue with my course of action, I welcome you to reach out to the Speaker of the House, whom I have kept informed during this process.

Kind Regards,

David Burt

From: Susan Jackson

Sent: Friday, April 8,

To: David Burt

Subject: Re: PAC_Motion

Mr Chairman,

I understand what the legislation says and the chair’s power. It remains the respectable course to inform members prior to carrying out such powers. As a team we must do what we can to sustain and improve the credibility of the PAC. Again, this is a matter of principle. Politics aside, if you’d consulted your committee members we may have come up with a strategy that would have produced a more productive result. The motion remains to withdraw this subpoena/summons. Never read the wording. I look forward to your confirmation of a brief in-camera to vote prior to our next public meeting scheduled for 14 April 2016.

Most sincerely,

Susan

On 9 April Lovitta Foggo wrote:

I am quite concerned about this request. I feel like PAC is becoming quite partisan. When do we recognise that at least in PAC we are never supposed to be partisan? In any case the chair does not need a consensus to operate. PAC has never tried to stop the Chairman from exercising his duty in the past. You cannot override the chair by vote or otherwise. Perhaps the chair should consider running the meetings as former chairs have, then this entire line of conversation would not be taking place. ?The chair has exercised an option that he is entitled to do and that needed to be done. If civil servants and the executive don’t respect us as parliamentary officers it is incumbent upon us all to ensure that we are taken seriously and if a summons is required to make people respond as they should then so be it. When I served in government on a committee we had to issue a summons to get one of the PS to comply who at first did not because his Minister directed him not to. He had to when receiving a summons. Let’s hope the FS and his Minister follow the law. We need to do our jobs.

From: David Burt

Date: 04/12/2016 08:26 PM

Subject: Re: PAC_Motion

Good Evening All,

For clarity the PAC will meet in public session on Thursday. MP Jackson, should you wish to make a motion it will be done in our public session on Thursday. If your motion is to rescind a request that has already been sent and acknowledged, the motion will be ruled out of order, however I welcome you to make your point prior to that ruling.

I look forward to seeing you all on Thursday.

Regards,

DB