February 5, 2004

Dear Sir

Replying to Edwin Cowen's letter (February 3, 2004), I very much endorse that Heydon, Purvis Park, Elizabeth Hills and Ferguson Park be turned over to the private sector.

They have a different requirements and do's and don'ts, especially #5 on the agreement which should be read before the tenant leaves the building of BHC, but many of them chose to ignore it.

We also used to have the same mason, electrician and plumber year after year with the best results, now we do not know who or what we're going to get.

So powers that be, please take Mr. Cowen's advice and put these places back to the private sector where they can be managed according to the 'Trust' who built them for low income, needy survivors only.

We miss you, Mr. Cowen.

February 6, 2004

Dear Sir,

Thank you for allowing space in your paper to provide another view on the proposed sale of Bank of Bermuda. As a small shareholder and a Bermudian, there is concern from just about everyone I talk with about this proposed transaction. I have read much of the senior management, the director's, and now HSBC's PR about why the sale is in not only in the best interest, but is also the only viable option for the bank's future, but I am at a loss at how they came to this conclusion.

I remember when the bank's management and the board of directors announced their desire to list the bank on Nasdaq. It was a necessary step as it gave the bank access to capital for expansion that it would not otherwise enjoy, they said. It was also an opportunity to raise shareholder value, as the share price was considered low and Nasdaq was going to remedy all this; not to mention the potential benefits for those executive management and directors with self elected 'share options'.

Shareholders agreed with them. Where is the benefit? Now, many of the same arguments surface again in connection with the sale (with the exception of shareholder value, as shareholders will no longer exist under this latest scheme).

So, why have the benefits of a Nasdaq listing to Bank of Bermuda not materialised, or is the sale that true benefit. Were the shareholders deceived about the true motive of the Nasdaq listing? Management has been buying back bank stock for sometime, was this to ensure control of the sale vote? What effort has management and the board made to realise the benefits for expansion or just gain efficiencies, the latter directly related to shareholder value.

And, did the directors, elected to represent shareholder interests, really consider all options in the best interest of their shareholders before agreeing with what appears to be a get-rich-quick scheme for a select few?

We should question the legitimacy of the arguments and, do so in consideration of the Bank of Bermuda's performance, particularly compared with that of Bank of Butterfield. Interestingly, Bank of Butterfield's shareholder value has improved during this same period, and they are not listed on Nasdaq. They are also expanding though acquisition. How does Bank of Bermuda explain that one! Is Bank of Butterfield doing business on another planet to that of Bank of Bermuda, as they appear to be improving performance by leaps and bounds since their Board made their very appear to be improving performance by leaps and bounds since their Board made their very courageous, and what is proving the right decision to import an experienced CEO. All indications are they had another record year in 2003, despite market conditions, and I am sure their success will continue into 2004 and beyond. I take my hat off to the Chairman and his board at NTB!

Has Bank of Bermuda's Board considered that its difficulty is in senior management's ability to manage an organisation of this size and not the world or the markets. Reading the annual reports of both banks leads me to believe that Bank of Bermuda's performance is not the result of markets, low interest rates or world conditions, rather the ability of management to gain the necessary efficiencies through good basic leadership skills. So, why is the answer to sell the ship rather than replace its senior crew? A question that deserves serious discussion.

In my opinion, the bank's inability to raise additional capital and gain much needed efficiencies that would provide improved shareholder value is simple and directly related to management's performance. Being listed on the BSX is not the same as Nasdaq where management performance is critical. It is now obvious that the bank was not truly equipped for a Nasdaq listing, it did not have the management or board to do so effectively.

I think NTB has more than demonstrated that a small bank can survive very well and provide strong shareholder value. All that is needed is the right board and management team.

The directors of Bank of Bermuda I believe have to provide, no convince shareholders that they have acted in our best interest. I for one think we can get the bank bank on course, and perhaps should be brought forward as a motion for the next shareholders meeting ? bring back Mr. Lines as interim CEO to start moving the ship back into chartered waters, while the shareholders determine the future of the present board of directors and search for an experienced CEO. I do not believe selling the ship is the best option, although it is certainly the easy option.

On another point, the sale includes all assets including the banks properties worldwide. I have heard nothing concerning the stamp duty of the local properties. Is Government collecting stamp duty from the transfer of ownership of millions of dollars in Bermuda property to a foreigner? If not, even a better deal for HSBC.

February 9, 2004

Dear Sir,

I have read with great interest, the recent news stories involving high ranking civil servants, who the General Secretary of the BPSU chose to publicly support, and I am left to ponder a simple question.

Why is the same effort not utilised when other lower ranking BPSU members are faced with unfair situations? In those instances, Mr. Ball offers no comment. In my view, each and every member should be afforded equal respect and support, regardless of their rank or position. Mr. Ball appears to be very selective in his representation.

In HM Customs for instance, transportation is a condition of employment for those joining from the lower rank, yet a gas allowance is not offered to the workers. Sanctioned by the BPSU, the Customs Officers at the Airport are now required to report to work more than once in one day to cut overtime costs. They use their personal transportation/gas to perform government business, when the cost of gas is steadily increasing.

This, however, only affects a minority of the Customs officers and, unfortunately, has not received the same attention from Mr. Ball as, say, the parking tickets issue. If the problem was to receive a degree of attention, I'm certain it would be a simple process to negotiate, especially when transportation is being provided to guest workers/management who work in the 9-5 positions and are not required to do on-call work. They are being provided with transportation/gasoline, handsome salaries and more than likely, even housing for the guest workers.

On the other hand, the poor locals at the lower end have to provide their own transportation/gas to and from work each day (two and three times a day on occasion), pay their own rent/mortgages and have money taken from them (i.e. overtime cuts). Is this fair to the workers? Is this not an issue that requires the attention of the BPSU?

Perhaps the General Secretary can look into making things better for the lower ranking members, and support their concerns.

Management may have the right to allocate the government vehicles to whomever they choose, albeit, it should be for government business only and not a means of personal transportation.

After all, why would a union that is supposed to represent the workers, be more concerned about management's rights to the point of including 'Article 3' in the Union Agreement booklet to reflect same?

Prior to January 2002, it was not included. This should encourage the BPSU members who are non-management, to rethink the representation they are receiving from the Union and beware of the distractions.

February 4, 2004

Dear Sir,

I have three points to make in response to my light-skinned elder, Dr. Eva N. Hodgson with respect to her recent comment about my letter paying tribute to the Honourable Mr. Cox.

First, I didn't have her specifically in mind when I wrote the tribute.

Secondly however, if the shoe fits, if the hat fits then perhaps Dr. Hodgson should wear the gown as well.

Thirdly and finally, I can quite understand that the "truth" may be offensive to the guilty and to those whose conscience it might prick.