Questions for BHC

March 11, 2002

Dear Sir,

Some basic questions need to be answered in the case of the American Mr. Paul Young receiving over $800,000.00 from the Bermuda Housing Corp. for "painting" over a seven-month period last year.

1 Is his company registered with the Tax commissioner?

2 How much in taxes did he pay over the period in question?

3 Is he a limited liability - if so, who owns shares in his company?

4 Were the projects that Mr. Young was awarded, won by competitive tender? Or by "open" tender in the newspaper? Or just given to him?

5 If there were other bidders, who were they and what were their bids?

6 What sort of contract documentation was there for these projects?

7 Who certified the work as complete and authorised payments?

8 What did Mr. Young actually do?

9 What track record does he have in the industry and who else has he worked for locally?

These are just some preliminary questions. The answers will tell us whether or not Mr. Young and the Bermuda Housing Corp. management need to be investigated by the Police Service fraud squad.

Even without these answers some things are apparent. If a criminal act has not been committed (which is hard to believe at this point), then at the very least the Bermuda Housing Corp. management is guilty of extreme and gross negligence.

It is impossible for any Bermudian to believe that Mr. Young (or anyone else for that matter) could fairly and squarely win this much painting work from any Government Dept. Nor could anyone believe that a painting contractor could actually "do" $800,000.00 worth of painting over a seven-month period. I have over twenty years experience in the Bermuda construction industry and I'll tell you what I think - I think:

GREEDY KILLED PIGGY

Paget

BTC must justify increase

The following was sent to the Telecommunications Commission and copied to The Royal Gazette

March 6, 2002

Dear Commissioners,

Please accept this letter as my formal notice of concerns over the proposed payphone rate increases by the Bermuda Telephone Company (BTC). My particular concern is that these rate increases have neither been justified sufficiently to the public nor have they been explained as to how the revenue garnered from these increases will lead to better quality products and services from the BTC.

In September, 2001, Verizon, the largest provider of payphones in the United States of America announced that it would increase the local call payphone fee from twenty-five cents to fifty cents. They stated that the increased revenue would be used for research and development of their wireless services.

This is essentially a transfer of wealth from the poor, who depend heavily on payphone services, to the middle class and wealthier, who can afford and have come to rely on dependable wireless telecom access. While I do not agree with the reasons behind Verizon's payphone fee increases, I respect the transparency and honesty of that corporation.

I do not feel that the BTC has provided any transparency with regards to the fee increases for local call payphone charges. Before the fee increase is approved, the only local payphone provider in the country should be accountable to the public on how the increased revenues will be used. Additionally, because the BTC is in a monopoly position, there needs to be an examination of the socio-economic impact of these increases on all demographics of the local population. In a country as wealthy as Bermuda, it would be an embarrassment to discover that these rate increases are regressive and lead to an increase in the gap between the services provided to the wealthy and those who aren't so fortunate.

Two other concerns directly related to the fee increase are: - Is the rate of the increase consistent with the rate of inflation since the last increase? I would like to know how the BTC determined that fifty cents was a reasonable new fee to charge, as it seems unlikely that a 150 percent increase matches the rate of inflation.

Will the BTC work to ensure that their payphones are in good working order? Based on my experiences as well as what I have heard from others, it is not unusual to come across phones that are not in working order, do not have phone books, or are not clean. There needs to be an increase in the quality of the phones and the frequency of servicing if a 150 percent increase in user-fees is going to be accepted by the general public.

Finally, has sufficient research been done by the BTC to ensure that the population who uses payphones will continue to use the payphones or will the increase in costs lead users to seriously explore the feasible substitutes, such as wireless options? While this last point is largely an internal question that must be determined by the analysts at BTC, because the company is in a monopoly position the Commission should also be concerned with this question.

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns with regards to the proposed local call payphone fee increases. I look forward to your personal response and how these issues will be addressed in a public forum. Yours sincerely,

RACHEL SKRLAC, MA

No to CARICOM

March 1, 2002

Dear Sir,

I thoroughly agree with Sir John Swan's Commentary, over the past weeks, about the problems with Bermuda joining CAIRCOM. Someone criticised a white person's view against joining as racist - it was probably Col. Burch because that is his reactive agenda. I cannot be a racist because I am black, but it actually reveals his agenda - and others that agree with joining CAIRCOM - that it is a vote on their black emotion to join a black agency. There is no other purpose. Joining serves us not little but nothing. In fact, as Sir John has been saying, and I don't need to parrot his well thought out rationale, these are overwhelming negatives.

I am not sure what the limit of the Parliament's mandate is, but I know what it should be. The Parliamentarians are representatives in fact, not delegates, as far as I know. This is significant, or should be! Parliament must be challenged on their right to make sweeping decisions on issues that affect our welfare. There is a linkage between this CARICOM issue and the boundaries issue - emotion, anger, payback.

In no small part, thanks to my incessant commentary, the PLP's link with the West Indians is becoming more and more apparent. Their connection with Bermuda is very short - perhaps eighty years at most that the overwhelming majority of them, or at least their parents literally snuck up here without work permits in today's jargon. I use these strong words to make the point especially as they entrench more and more legislation to limit short and long term residents' rights! Having been treated badly so recently, they with the wisdom of experience, that others who come on the next boat, not badly, but very badly.

Am I the only person who sees the illogic, the compounded wrong of hypocrisy? I drift to this tangential issue because it can be the only explanation for this otherwise irrational, poorly serving action of joining a group that offers us only negatives. It would not take long to do a survey of how many Bermudian - born grandparents the PLP incumbents have. Also check their party officials - you will see why I call them the St. Kitts Club (check the top black civil servants and check on the UBP's grandparent's age, just to show this is no witch hunt.)

When people act in anger, retaliation, revenge, with scores to settle, they are not rational. This is not only wrong but stupid. Thank yo Sir John Swan for your overview. To the PLP incumbents - return and live in your island houses - don't try to take us to the West Indies. Our only association with the West Indies is the colour of your skin. We are not close, literally and figuratively in any other way.

SANDERS FRITH-BROWN

Warwick