Opposition deputy leader Trevor Moniz is calling on the Bermuda Industrial Union to open up its books after it was let off nearly $7 million owed from the controversial Berkeley school project.

The union, through a subsidiary Union Asset Holdings Ltd, was given $700,000 by Government to take out a bond for $6.8 million, payable if original contractors Pro-Active defaulted.

In 2004 the firm was sacked and an arbitration hearing found Government was right to axe the company which now owes Government more than $15 million.

But Government opted not to go after the $6.8 million bond, arguing it could bankrupt the union with Premier Dr. Brown saying last week that UAH had contributed $9 million to Pro-Active during the Berkeley project.

But the union's finances remain a mystery with the BIU last filing accounts covering the period 1999 to 2002.

Mr. Moniz said: "It is appalling the accounts haven't been filed.

"It's completely unlawful, it's an insult to the members of the union, it's being run as a fiefdom by a small group of people.

"And Government is doing nothing about that at all. It's doing the members and public a great disservice."

And Mr. Moniz said he had been disgusted by the whole saga.

"I don't understand why the union would have put money into the ProActive project and how they would have done that within their own rules," said Mr. Moniz.

"Was it their money, was it (BIU) Credit Union money? Where would such large sums of money come from?

"Did the members authorise putting that money into a building project from which they presumably received nothing?"

On a YouTube video released by Cabinet Office, Mr. Furbert was shown explaining the situation to BIU members last week.

Mr. Furbert said: "The general council, the executive board, will be held accountable for the decision that they made by providing the performance bond back then through UAH."

He said one member had made the point that "it should have come back to the membership".

Mr. Furbert said: "That's a lesson, with life's lessons you are sometimes able to fix them and go forward.

"It's like when your child makes a mistake, you correct the child. You hope the child doesn't repeat the mistake."

Mr. Moniz said last night it seems the principals of Pro-Active had got away scot-free from their debts.

"If I was a union member I would be complaining vociferously.

"What steps are they taking to get that money back? I don't see how that is an excuse for not pursuing the bond. In my view the union should pay that bond.

"It is not to say that anyone would bankrupt the BIU.

"If you have a judgment against you and you can't pay it all at once you do it a bit at a time, you take a mortgage or whatever.

"You entered into it, if there is anyone that anybody should be angry at then surely it should be the leadership of the union who authorised it.

"On what basis would they authorise and what protection did they get from Pro-Active the principals of Pro-Active?

"If I went to the bank for a loan in the name of 'ABC Ltd' the bank gets the company to sign the loan but they also get the principals to sign individual indemnities and guarantees on the loan.

"You don't get off scot-free because your company goes belly up. They come after you.

"All this makes no sense whatsoever. It is the opposite of transparent, it stinks."

Mr. Furbert could not be reached for comment yesterday while the Registry General was not able to say if the BIU had filed any more accounts recently.

The last set, covering 1999 to 2002, revealed the BIU had nearly $11 million in assets in 2002, up by $2 million from 1999, with nearly $2 million in cash and the rest in buildings and land.

For those three years the BIU had a total income of more than $25 million and paid out nearly $11 million in salaries.

Last year it was revealed the BIU had a 20 percent stake in a cement company Island Cement.