Mr William A Harrison
Government House
Anguilla

Your Excellency

Section 63(2) of the Anguilla Constitution Order 1982

This is an open letter which I shall circulate to the Press immediately after its delivery to you.
As you will be well aware, Section 63(2) of the Anguilla Constitution Order provides that:

(2) The Governor, acting after consultation with the Chief Minister, may at any time, by Proclamation published in the Official Gazette, dissolve the Assembly.
I submit to you that, for the reasons which follow, you should give earnest and urgent consideration to holding such consultation and to dissolving the Assembly with the minimum of delay.
1. As every Anguillian knows, the Flag project (amongst other missed opportunities for Anguilla) represents the most serious of all the current threats to the future economic viability of Anguilla.
2. Mr Sillerman, the principal at Flag who has been chiefly involved with the failed project, is reported in the Observer of 26th July 2009 and the New York Post the following day, in both cases in an article by the respected reporter James Doran, as having said:

"I think I have shown conclusively that I am not knowledgeable enough about the real estate business. I think I should leave it to other people to pursue."
3. This assessment seems, on the facts, to be virtually incontrovertible and yet, according to information that has come into my possession, the Government has made commitments to Flag which inhibit the Government from considering alternative solutions in the interim (i.e. presumably something akin to an exclusivity deal, with an expiration date that is already far later than can possibly be in the best interests of Anguilla and the Anguillian people). One cannot help wondering what commercial justification there can possibly be for granting yet more time to a failed developer when it has already spent considerably more than a year attempting to come up with a resolution and when the likelihood of its ever being able to do so looks increasingly remote.
4. Every moment that passes represents potentially lost opportunity to secure a solution that could lead to the reopening of the golf course in time for the season (which is of fundamental importance for the entire tourist industry of Anguilla, both in practical terms and in terms of public relations), an early resumption of economic activity in relation to the project and in due course an orderly completion of the development in whatever form proves practicable and in the best interests of the Anguillian people.
5. I understand that, at considerable expense, a prospective developer submitted a formal proposal to the Government some time in late August. Did the developer receive a response and, if they did, should not the Anguillian public be made aware of the proposal and the response?
6. The answer, I believe, is that, since receiving the proposal and despite promises in the interim, not even so much as an acknowledgement of the proposal has been received by the prospective developer from the Chief Minister. You will appreciate that time is of the essence as regards the viability of a rescue package, so that the continued lack of an appropriate response runs the serious risk that the prospective developer will conclude that the current Government of Anguilla is not a body with which it can sensibly do business and will most likely cut its losses and walk away. I freely acknowledge that this prospective developer's proposal may be only one of several possibilities, and is as yet unproven, but unless government has good reason to reject it outright, it seems extremely unwise - to put it no higher - to treat it with such cavalier disregard, and to do so without giving the facts to the Anguillian people, especially including those suffering the greatest hardship as a result of the present impasse.
7. Amongst the many questions to which I believe the Anguillian people are entitled to a clear and unequivocal answer are the following:
7.1 What, if any, reason does the Government have for believing that Flag, any affiliate of Flag, Mr Sillerman, or any related party, should even be considered for potential ongoing involvement in the project? Haven't Flag and its associated companies demonstrated that they are not capable of bringing a project of this nature to a successful conclusion and prevaricated and played hard ball for far too long already?
7.2 If the Government has a plausible answer to that question, why does it consider, having regard to Flag's and Mr Sillerman's track record, both in Anguilla and elsewhere (including the planned Elvis Presley Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas), Mr Sillerman's self-confessed lack of expertise in the real estate business, and the fact that the project has run into the sand for well over a year under Flag's auspices, that Flag, or any related or associated party, is a more suitable candidate to rescue the project than others who apparently have more appropriate credentials?
7.3 The Government have been publicly self-congratulatory that the form of model Memorandum of Agreement they have devised and adopted for the major developments in Anguilla has become the accepted model throughout much of the Caribbean. If it is so effective, why have they signally failed to enforce it in any of the most important instances of difficulty? Is this not evidence of their ineptitude and their unsuitability to remain responsible for issues that will make or (possibly for years to come) break Anguilla?
7.4 It should be noted that many of the features and extravagant concessions previously offered to Flag are replicated or mimicked in the 7th July 2009 Memorandum of Agreement with Cap Juluca. The profligate concessions and give-aways to foreign interests contained in the Cap Juluca MoA, which are not matched in the terms under which Anguillians have the opportunity to invest in their country's future, place Anguillians at a crippling competitive disadvantage as compared with the foreign developers. The same features are manifest in the Flag MoA and, it is feared, those features are at grave risk of being exacerbated by the Government's apparent servility towards, and desire to appease, Flag, by granting it priority consideration that it has done nothing to deserve. Can the Government confirm that NO additional concessions have been mooted or are contemplated in response to any proposal now being made to them by Flag?
7.5 Put another way, what additional incentives (fiscal or otherwise), over and above those granted prior to the collapse of the project in mid-2008, have the Government or the Chief Minister offered to Flag to induce them to remain involved in the project? And what prospective loss of revenue do such incentives entail for Anguilla?
7.6 Failing enforcement of the MoA, why do the Government not have the courage at least to explore any of the alternative solutions that are being offered to them, including the possibility of a plan entailing some compulsory acquisition in the public interest, as in the alternative proposal submitted to them on 2nd September?
7.7 What, if any, incentives have the Government received from Mr Sillerman or Flag to induce them to give yet more time for Flag, of all people, to come up with a rescue solution? And can the Chief Minister give a categorical assurance that the Government have not at any time during their terms of office received any significantly valuable favours from Mr Sillerman or Flag, including free or subsidised long distance transportation, such as might place them under an obligation to any of the companies with which Mr Sillerman is associated, or such as might constitute an infringement of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?
7.8 What commitments have the Government given to Mr Sillerman or Flag that apparently preclude the Government from negotiating freely to secure the best outcome for Anguilla and Anguillians, and what are the perceived benefits likely to accrue to Anguilla in return for those commitments?
7.9 Why are the options and negotiations being kept secret from the Anguillian people? There appears to be no valid commercial reason for such secrecy.
8. Anguilla is already in financial crisis. It is on the brink of a potentially even worse financial crisis. The government is disregarding the call of the people for greater openness at a time when the Anguillian people have never been in greater need of such openness. In such circumstances, continued government secrecy can only fuel suspicion that all is not well and can serve no other purpose than to keep from the people the considerations they should be aware of in the run-up to the elections for a new government.
9. If the Government and/or the Chief Minister remain unwilling and/or unable to share with the Anguilla people the truth underlying the problems Anguilla currently faces, and in particular their reasons for clinging to a failed developer and their disregard of constructive alternative proposals, either the Chief Minister should immediately advise Your Excellency to prorogue the Assembly, under section 63(1) of the Constitution, or, I submit, you should exercise your power under section 63(2) to dissolve the Assembly without delay.
I recognise that you may interpret this proposal as politically motivated. However that is not the case, since my party, the Anguilla Progressive Party, believes that the longer lead time it has to the election the greater advances it will achieve in securing the popular vote. My motive in writing this letter, therefore, is purely and simply in the conviction (which I believe is shared by the majority of the people of Anguilla) that Anguilla is being led to the brink, and I fear beyond the brink, of disaster by the incumbent government and that in the best interests of Anguilla, the creditors of Flag (both Anguillian and non-Anguillian) and the people of Anguilla generally, the people should be given the opportunity to elect a new government, unencumbered by the present government's baggage, including its self-imposed inhibitions on the negotiation of a solution to the Flag/Temenos issues. In my view a new government is urgently needed as never before.

A new government, with a new mandate from the Anguillian people, whether it is an APP government or not, cannot but be better placed to negotiate from a position of strength with all comers, unencumbered by prior commitments that are not contractually irreversible. That situation is what the Anguillian people need and that is what the Anguillian people deserve.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Palmavon Webster
APP Candidate for District One

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

World News