Bermuda Industrial Union president Derrick Burgess has often criticised the use of foreign experts by Government and the private sector, arguing that it is better to look for Bermudian solutions first.

To some degree, Mr. Burgess is right. Often, the advice of these experts does not take into account what makes Bermuda different from the rest of the world. If they have special knowledge that cannot be found in Bermuda, then that is a risk that has to be taken.

The biggest problem with any consultant is that they will tell the person paying the bill what they want to hear and not necessarily the best answer to the problem.

True to form, Mr. Burgess and his members will have welcomed the speech delivered by former US presidential candidate the Rev. Al Sharpton on Friday night. The Rev. Sharpton is, without question, a powerful speaker; There was not much in it that differed from what the union, the Progressive Labour Party and those who see politics primarily in racial terms like to hear, whether it is from a Bermudian or a visitor. It?s the message and not the medium that counts. The speech was, essentially, red meat for the union and the PLP, calling for Independence and for black empowerment, indeed, he largely saw the two as the same thing.

In spite of his relative lack of knowledge about Bermuda, he also correctly identified the dangers of being hyper-critical of friends and neighbours. While the Rev. Sharpton identified this as ?negro amnaesia?, it is a disease that Bermudians and Bermuda residents of all races and backgrounds suffer from. We tend to take self-examination, which is valuable in moderation, to extremes, when it can be highly destructive.

The Rev. Sharpton is entitled to his opinions on these issues; there will be some who agree with him and some who don?t. That?s what debate is all about.

But he betrayed his lack of knowledge about the Bermuda political system (and perhaps any other political system, since he has never held any elected office) when he gave unsolicited advice on the Berkeley project.

Without actually naming the project, he referred to dissension between the Government and the BIU. These kinds of disagreements were better kept behind closed doors, the Rev. Sharpton said, because to have ?family? disputes like this aired in the open only gave succour to the enemies of the union and the Government.

?It does not benefit the family for others in the neighbourhood to know you?ve got a fight ? particularly if they can benefit from your family divided and particularly since it took so long to get the family together in the first place,? he said.

But if the Rev. Sharpton was talking about the Berkeley project, then he could not be more wrong. The $83 million due to be paid to Pro-Active Construction belongs ? or belonged ? to the taxpayer, so how the Rev. Sharpton can presume to say that this is a dispute that should be solved behind closed doors defies reason.

This is not a dispute between the Government and the BIU. This is a public dispute about public money. And the Rev. Sharpton should not presume to cast judgments on issues he with which he is not familiar.