Web of corruption & conflict of interest in Ports Project- Report
The Project was first brought to the public’s attention by Minister for Communications and Works Honourable Mark H. Vanterpool (R4), one of his many pet projects following the 2011 general elections that saw the National Democratic Party (NDP) regime gaining power.
After many questions and suspicions continued to surface about the Port Development Project and road blocks by Opposition members to obtain answers to their many questions in the House of Assembly, the Auditor General of the Virgin Islands Ms. Sonia M. Webster, using her power under the Constitution, did an audit of the project.
Background VIP’s plans (2007-2011)
Agreeing that the port facility on Wickhams Cay in Road Town needed to be expanded in order for the Government of the day (VIP) and the BVI Ports Authority to keep pace with the growing size of ships, in 2008 the BVI Ports Authority advised the Government of the need to move forward with an expansion project.
It was in 2009 that proposals were made by both Royal Caribbean and Disney’s Magical Cruise Company for the expansion of the pier and assistance with financing.
In 2011 the BVI Ports Authority stepped up its talks with Disney for a construction loan to extend the pier. The Disney proposal stipulated a $12 million loan facility which would be used to construct a two span pier extension at the cruise ship pier and a welcome centre. The loan would be amortized over a ten-year period.
Heads of Terms were signed by the BVI Ports Authority and then Premier Ralph T. O’Neal OBE on October 11, 2011 with Disney’s Magical Cruise Company.
Elections changed the game
Following the November 2011 general elections, the NDP came to power and Honourable Mark H. Vanterpool was appointed Minister for Communications and Works. The subject of the Ports at that time was with the Ministry of Finance, however, within weeks it was reassigned to the Ministry of Communications and Works.
According to the Auditor’s Report on the Project under the NDP, the pier expansion project evolved to include a comprehensive development of the pier and upland in an arrangement that required long term partnering. In other words the VIP’s plans were out the door.
On page 4 (20) of the Auditor General’s Report, it stated that “a consultant, Mr. Claude Skelton-Cline was engaged by the Ministry of Communications and Works for the purpose of liaising with the Ports Authority and advising on port related matters”. However, Minister Vanterpool made it clear that Mr. Skelton-Cline was hired to advise him on ports matters and “improving communications” between the Ministry and the BVI Ports Authority.
Tortola Port Partners preferred proposal from get go-Auditor’s Report
After determined not to consider the BVI Ports Authority proposal under the former government from Disney, three companies sent in proposals in what the Auditor General (AG) described as “through a process that has not been adequately explained”.
The report stated that the proposal came from CaribInvest, Trident Development Enterprise LLC, and Port Development Partners, BVI Ltd., later known as Tortola Port Partners.
The submission differed from the Disney proposal in significant ways such as major development of the upland, a long term commitment by the Ports Authority and the Government from 12 years to 49-50 years, and amendment of the Ports Authority’s fees (passenger tax) among others.
Once the project finally went out to public tender, Ms. Webster wrote, page 10 (59) “ provision in the invitation for expression of interest mirrored the previously accepted proposal from Tortola Port Partners to a considerable extent which may have created an unfair advantage. This opens the door whereby the impartiality of the process could be challenged.”
One man review, according to Report
The three submissions were reviewed by the consultant Claude Skelton-Cline, who according to the AG Report, recommended that the Government negotiate with Tortola Port Partners for the Port Expansion and upland development.
The AG Report stated that the Ministry subsequently accepted Tortola Port Partners’ submission, which detailed a $57 million investment for the pier expansion and upland development on a 49- year marine and land lease arrangement.
However, on page 5 (31) the report stated that “there was no transparency in the process by which the three submissions were received”.
Did anyone violate the laws of the country? Report
The AG Report page 6 (34) clearly reinforced that the BVI Ports Authority is specifically authorized to develop and manage all lands that have been leased or vested in the Authority (BVI Ports Authority) Act 1990 sec 4 (e). It is in addition, empowered by Section 5 (d) of the Act to coordinate and execute any Government project in any specified ports.
However, the report detailed that “throughout the period in which the proposal for the development were being pursued and assessed (November 2011-July 2012) the project was directed and controlled by the Ministry of Communications and Works to the exclusion of the Ports Authority and its Board”. The project’s scope and costs, according to the report, “were expanded, representing a major shift in the development which received no prior approval from the Ports Authority” which is a violation of the Ports Act.
On March 27, 2012 the Heads of Understanding were executed between the government and the selected developer, Tortola Port Partners as per the Report. However, it is important to note that the “BVI Ports Authority was not a party to the agreement”- page 6 (36).
Furthermore, the laws give the BVI Ports Authority the power under its Act in Section 5 (d) “to coordinate and execute any Government project in any specified port”, but according to the report, this was not followed.
Instead of the Board of Directors, through its Chairman advising the Minister for Communications and Works according to its Act, “the Board Members were informed that the development was being pursued at a meeting on January 26, 2012 and briefed at a meeting on March 8, 2012 that the Disney agreement negotiation by the BVI Ports Authority in October 2011 was cancelled.”
The report on page 7 (42) revealed that “In effect, the role of the Ports Authority was reduced to endorsing decisions already made by the Ministry. In excluding the Authority from the decision making process, the Ministry failed to avail itself of the experience and knowledge residing in the management and Board of the Authority.”
Minister Vanterpool & consultant Skelton-Cline at Board meeting
On page 9 (37), the report stated that “after execution of the Heads Of Understanding, the Minister for Communications and Works and the Consultant attended a Board meeting on May 3, 2012 to provide information to the members about the selected proposal.
To again demonstrate that the Ministry of Communications and Works was running things on the project in violation of the Act, the report detailed that “subsequent….the Board received instructions from the Ministry on required actions and ratifications to ensure that the process was not hindered. These included requirement to execute an agreement with the developer for a credit of $3,043,880 to allow for ready mobilization of the pier work pending execution of the development contract”.
The BVI Ports Authority Board was also directed to “cover the cost of their presentation made by the Developer [Tortola Port Partners] in conjunction with the Ministry in July 2012 amounting to $11, 215.00.
With the public outcry for local involvement in the Ports Project, the Report said that “Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines proposal partnered with local firm Ramasco, which maintained an interest in the development before it became active”. The report stated that “submission by Tortola Port Partners named the BVI Investment Club as its local partner” on page 11 (61).
Project not in the BVI Interest-no representation for tax payers
The Auditor General on page 5 (26) of her report stated that “the revised project was not suitably appraised prior to the procurement stage as required by the Protocol for Effective Financial Management in 11 (a)”. To again demonstrate that no one during the negotiation was looking out for the people’s interest, Ms Webster wrote in her report, ‘no assessment was performed on the state of the market and how the development would likely impact other property owners, prospective developments and existing businesses on Wickhams Cay and in Road Town.
The report went on to say “in the absence of a project plan, the format and scope of the development appear to have been driven by the developers’ vision and interests as opposed to what was needed and beneficial for the Territory.”
On page 7 (44) of the Report, another example of how no one was looking out for the people’s interest, Ms Webster wrote that ‘throughout the process, the Attorney General’s Chambers was consulted for clarification and legal advice with respect to the Government’s interests. All of the legal documents, however, originated from the developer’s lawyers”.
The Auditor General complained in her report at page 11 (60) that “the tying together of the dock expansion to the development of the upland, without making allowance for the possibility of separate submission and assessment, limited the government’s ability to achieve value for money and precluded other parties that might have been qualified to perform one of the other engagement.”
More to come over the next few days.
.png)
.png)
.png)
Follow Us On
100 Responses to “Web of corruption & conflict of interest in Ports Project- Report”
M**k lie to us over & over saying he had a hands off approach to the project now we learn he was & is the main & only player in this scheme. What a crying shame!
everything M***k touch he destroy! You think S****ton bad, check into his influence and dictatorship through the Chairman of t*c! even there, we have a conflict of interest!!!!! people open your eyes!!!!!
Inflation a constant.
Education getting worse, our young people not employable by many standards.
Corruption the order of the day in politics.
What is left of my country?
While I have alway liked m**k as a person I cannot understand for the world of me what makes him think this type of behavior is acceptable as a business person and representative of the people in his district and the greater British Virgin ISlands.
I am certain he also knows you are known by the company that you keep. Mr. CSK left as best a very questionable reputation.
The chairman of the BVI Ports Authority I see as a good guy but he seems to have a back seat to the Minister, Pow and others who seem to undermine the purpose of a Executive Board. D**s**o get out while you can, everyone will look for a scapegoat at the end of this debacle.
The people of the British Virgin Islands deserve better then this and if persons can't get paid for months and even years why are these few allowed to squander the people's money and serve only their selves while we go through this difficult economic times.
I expected better from the NDP, the Premier needs to lead or step out of the way.
When it comes to personal gain or pet projects, assessments and feasibility reports are never really considered. This also goes for ignoring the written laws, like development at Hans Creek which would have impacted a fisheries protected area by the (then and now) premier waved or ignored. There are more cases where government ministers thought they were above the law and could step over it for what ever the reasons. I find many a minister- just because they are a minister-- doing things that should get them disbarred let alone impeached. Sea Cow Bay? Carrot? Brewers? and oversized buildings. No regulations or zoning which is badly needed.
this will not change until those are held accountable and go to jail or are banned from public service. Someone needs to be made an example of or else nothing will change and the other party will act as badly again.
But steal millions and seekg re-election? Something very wrong here you think
Governor? Really? He in some palace of a home about to walk his poodle.
This audit is over a year old, you don't think the Governor already see it? lmao!!!
Aubrey has a new song to sing soon..................... Tings te Talk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we have bad roads
tourism going to the dogs
we're paying for water and power ( which can be generated from the waste plant and windmills)
no jobs for young people
uncontroled crime
just to name a few.... EITHER WE MARCH THEM OUT OR WE DIE..
My blogging will be on a point of the BVI-law;as it relates to Public Officials:
Not too many Public Officials are aware of Sections 80-A to E and Sections 81 A to I,of the Amended Criminal Code,of 1997.
I call on His Excellency-The Governor,Her Majesty's Representatives in the Virgin Islands,to read the law and report to the nation.
Let us all take a close look at section 81B of the BVI Criminal code(Amendment) Act,2006, No.8 of 2006 of the laws of the BVI:This is what the law declared-
[Public official taking gratification-section 81B,states""Any public official who,directly or indirectly,accepts or receives a gratification,for himself or for any other person-
(a)For doing or having done an act which he alleges,or induces any person to believe,he is empowered to do in the exercise of his functions or duties,although as a fact such act does not form part of his functions or duties-
commits an offence]
(2) A public official who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable-
(a) on summary conviction,to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding thirty thousand dollarts or both-
(b) On conviction on indictment,to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand dollars or three times the value of the gratification,whichever is higher,or both:
This is an excerpt of Her Majesty's written laws in the BVI!
Section 81C (1) of the Criminal Code(Amendment)Act,2006,defines and create the offence of
""Bribery for procuring contract""
The BVI law states..
""A person who,directly or indirectly,gives or agrees to give or offers a gratification to a public official in consideration of that public official giving assistance or using influence in..
(a) promoting,executing,or procuring a contract with a public body for the performance of a work,the supply of a service,or the procurement of supplies,
(b) The payment of the price provided for in a contract with a public body,or
(c) Obtaining for that person or for any other person,an advantage under a contract for work or procurement,
Commits an offence...
(3) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is,
(a) Liable on summary conviction,to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding thirty thousand dollars,or both""..
The legal team did not make or pass the the law in parliament:All I do is research the law,and then publish what I read on this democratic news site-VINO............
""Where,
(a) A public body in which a public official is a member,director,manager or other senior officer proposes to deal with a company,partnership or other undertaking in which that public official or relative or associate of him has a direct or indirect private interest,and
(b) That public official or his relative or associate of him holds more than ten percent of total issued share capital or of the total equity participation in such company,partnership or other undertaking,
That public official shall forthwith disclose,in writing,to that public body the nature of such interest.
(3) A public official who knowingly contravenes subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable..
(a) On summary conviction,to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars,or both""....
I didn't make or pass the law...The BVI law was passed by the BVI parliament!