Jumping off a cliff?

To add to the chorus of dismay with regards to Auditor General Heather Jacobs Matthews 2008/09 Consolidated Fund report, the initial results are downright shocking and do not signal prudence at the managing of our budget over recent years.   Ms. Matthews report outlines some of our greatest fears for Bermuda as we show increasing evidence that we’ve left ourselves with little buffer if things get worse.  Even more concerning are our finance minister’s nonchalance that everything is ok and her rather meek attempts at deflecting responsibility for our runaway budget.

Undoubtedly you’ve already seen it but the Bermuda Sun’s graphic is incredibly telling.  In the last 5 years we’ve witnessed expenditures vastly outrun our revenues, deficits and debt skyrocketing with no signs of it abating.  This at a time when we’re facing the fallout of a significant local recession on top of a global one along with threats of tax changes in the US.  We simply haven’t left ourselves much in the way of a means to stay afloat if we go off the deep end.

Finance Minister Paula Cox seems to continuously rely on the “well, everyone else is doing it” argument for jumping off a cliff.  Defending her actions in a recent opinion piece Ms. Cox suggests that the comparative US and UK fiscal deficits are an adequate reason for why we can let our own deficit grow.  Ms. Cox argues:

Debt is a necessary tool in public finance. Around the world in 2009, government debt and fiscal deficits rose sharply in response to an extraordinary financial crisis and the widespread global recession.
In the U.S., the Congressional Budget Office projected the U.S. fiscal deficit to be 13 per cent of GDP in 2009. In the U.K., their fiscal deficit in 2009 was estimated at 12.4 per cent of GDP.
Indeed, the U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer stated: "Allowing borrowing to rise - protecting services, helping people and businesses - is the right thing to do."
The fiscal deficit in Bermuda was in the range of 2.5-3.5 per cent of GDP in 2009.

The core problem with this argument is that our deficit began to grow out of control in a boom period when times were good and Ms. Cox was raving about 5 consecutive budgets where revenue outstretched expectations.  The US primarily grew its deficit over the last years due to a number of large wars, not vast overspend on capital projects.  Besides, we are a tiny island governed by completely different economics than those of superpowers.  The US and the UK have at their disposal mechanisms to adjust their debt and currency levels that we simply don’t have.  As an example, the US has taken to printing over a trillion dollars to deflate their currency thus adjusting their debt levels.  Whether or not this is a prudent move to take is debatable but ultimately they have a diverse economy that allows them to take to these forms of quantitative easing in hopes of stimulating the economy.   We don’t.

We’ve already expressed concerns at the ratio of local Bermudian $ borrowing versus savings and since we did so, the ratio has continued to climb.  We can note the latest regulatory update from the Bermuda Monetary Authority shows that we’ve become even more reliant on foreign borrowing to sustain ourselves and this is without even considering the borrowing our government is doing. 

We are increasingly reliant on borrowing foreign money to sustain ourselves and despite arguments that we’ve invested in infrastructure with our debt, the reality is that in a great many cases we vastly overpaid for that investment.  Would you readily pay me $2 for a regular $1 coin?  Likely not as you’d end up with something worth half as much as you paid for it.  So why do we think overpaying for Berkeley, the new cruise ship pier and the Port Royal renovations are good value for the added debt we’ve undertaken?  The worst part is that not only does the list of overspend go on but here is how our Finance Minister justifies it:

The Minister of Finance operates as a cog in the wheel. My role is to add value and to provide input on fiscal positions taken in various ministries. I can indicate support or objection. However the sponsoring minister(s) knows that I cannot overrule their request unless I have others who join with me to support and uphold my position.

Individual Ministers are 'finance directors' in their own right and have a responsibility to keep a keen eye on how their senior officials manage their budgets and projects.

In addition, there is an accountability framework that includes the office of the Accountant-General's Department, the Office of the Auditor-General, the Office of Internal Audit, and the Ministry of Finance HQ.

There we have it, the ‘Finance’ Minister has no power in actually managing finances and admits to no accountability for overspend.  The Minister of Public Safety is willing to take such a stance that he’ll resign to uphold his position while the Minister of Finance is “Politically neutered”.  But hey, we shouldn’t worry as the Office of Auditor General, you know likely the only department to actually have its budget restricted, office space contained and it’s head arrested twice, is part of the ‘accountability framework’.  

In the end, Ms. Cox is probably right that we should simply go along with it because everyone else is doing it, who knows, perhaps in 3 years we’ll be looking back at the musings of this “irresponsible and biased writer” to realize that everything said above was nonsense and completely wrong.  In the meantime it’d likely be wise to heed the wisdom of Gary Larson and always be sure you have a way out before following the herd of lemmings jumping off a cliff.

Encouraging alternatives to marijuana

So again we return to the whole marijuana crackdown debate.  We’ve already covered facts, fiction and a bit of history behind the drug and it’s prohibition along with a discussion on its implications on crime and gang activities, so there’s no need to rehash those arguments here.  What we can cover is a bit on the psychological addiction of marijuana, the implications that our policy and stance against it have on our society and ultimately the reasons why we should be focusing on encouraging alternatives rather than removing them.

Marijuana has not been proven to be physically addictive but has been shown to be psychologically addictive.  To understand the implications of psychological addiction one only needs to look around in our society.  Fatty food and fine sugars are not considered physically addictive and yet the effects of psychological addiction are readily apparent when one simply looks at our society’s extreme prevalence of obesity, heart disease and diabetes.  Quitting a long time habit of overindulgence is about as easy as quitting smoking cigarettes.  It isn’t something that happens overnight but instead is a grueling and arduous process of commitment to an ideal, self restraint and will power.  Usually it can’t be done without help and fighting relapse is a lifelong struggle if you don’t maintain a healthy active lifestyle.  In moderation fatty food and fine sugars can be a nice treat but in excess they can be one of our worst enemies.  Similar moderation is essential in all facets in life.

Fatty food and fine sugars are damaging to and represent a considerable tax on our society and yet we leave people to their own devices, free to abuse them.  Why?  How would society react if we were to enact laws against sugar and fatty food consumption?  If tasty meals and deserts were restricted?  If we were to enact regular testing denying jobs and access to activities on the basis of blood sugar and cholesterol levels?  Certainly it would be better for our health but ultimately it would rope in so many victims of psychological addiction that we’d simply further balloon our prison population with people barely capable of helping themselves stay away from it.  These individuals wouldn’t simply wake up one day, realize it’s illegal and never touch another powered donut.  The temptation is simply too great if you use food as a crutch to help yourself manage through life.  Marijuana is little different.  In moderation it can be as unhealthy as those fatty foods and fine sugars and yet in excess it can be just like those foods in that it can be a debilitating crutch that keeps people from living a healthy and productive life.  You can’t simply say today we’re cracking down and expect every user to readily stop using, it just doesn’t work like that.

Despite the well known wide prevalence of marijuana use in our society we seem to think that our approach can be different, that use can be turned off like a light switch.  We seem to believe that keeping it illegal and cracking down heavily is the answer and that people will kick their habit just like that.  Nothing in life is that easy and yet we keep acting like it is.  There is a great crusade of anti-marijuana campaigners out there who aim to ensure that you can’t have a steady job, you can’t get involved in sports, you can’t have a life if you partake in marijuana smoking.  It is a sure fire lose-lose approach.  Imagine if tomorrow we made fine sugars and fatty foods illegal and embarked on a similar campaign.  Guaranteed a large segment of our society would not only avoid giving up their habit, they would fall deeper into it for lack of alternatives to using.  Why do we think marijuana is any different than these unhealthy foods?

Saying that because someone uses marijuana they can’t partake in local sports robs them of legitimate alternatives to lighting up.  We need to be focusing on encouraging abusers to seek healthy alternatives rather than advocating that there is no alternative.  Similarly with the crackdown on job opportunities.  By unnecessarily enforcing drug testing and ensuring that marijuana smokers cannot obtain steady jobs we guarantee that a large segment are pushed further and further into a life of crime.  Again, imagine if we did this for fatty foods and sugars.  What do you honestly believe would happen if tomorrow people were banned from sports and holding steady jobs if their blood sugar and cholesterol counts were too high?   Do you honestly believe the now jobless and alternative restricted over indulgers are going to suddenly drop their crutch and stop eating the wrong foods?  Is it more likely they’d only end up more likely to lean on their crutch to get through these rougher times?

Our approach to combating over indulgence of unhealthy foods is to test regularly as a guideline rather than a rule, advise of the risks, educate and work together to encourage people to choose a more healthy and active lifestyle.  Perhaps it is not successful in all cases but gradually through various community programs, education initiatives and genuine commitment by our society to improve our health we’re seeing better results as we understand the implications of an unhealthy lifestyle and addiction to unhealthy eating.  Is this approach a better alternative to criminalizing all sweets and fatty foods to save people from themselves?  If so, why do we feel it is necessary to take two different approaches with similar forms of substance abuse?    Perhaps it’s time we rethink our approach and devise more ways to encourage people to choose a healthier and more active lifestyle rather than ensure that they don't have a choice.

Back in the limelight

Roughly every six months the same controversial topics jump into the limelight, there’s a big uproar of debate, little changes and things quiet down until six months later the cycle repeats.  The latest to jump back into the limelight is the topic of marijuana, where Senator Burch laments the fact that people skirt laws to smoke it and harm their opportunities for jobs.  As usual, he advocates a vicious crackdown on all offenders in an attempt to curb use, suggests police shouldn’t be cherry picking which laws to enforce and rather ironically pledges to resign from politics if the PLP promotes decriminalization.  Let’s take a moment to hash out his argument, shall we?

Let’s begin with Senator Burch’s pledge to resign from politics.  This in itself is a rather idle threat that may well be geared to get more publicity than anything.  Let’s remember for a moment that the people have never supported Senator Burch enough to elect him as a politician and that he’s only held his political stature as an appointee.  Thus, who really is all that concerned by his threat to resign from politics?  Let’s then recall that as an appointee he’s at risk of being replaced if he falls out of favor with the leadership of the day.  With the present Premier out of favor and on his way out his replacement may well not have any interest in reappointing Senator Burch so he may well be on his way out as well.  Thus Senator Burch’s threat may be rather idle and ironic as the people haven’t shown enough interest in having him in politics in the first place and the next leadership may not either.

Next up we can consider the so called cherry picking by police of which laws to enforce where Senator Burch has been known for spouting catch phrases such as “No one is above the law” and preaching that police must enforce all laws to the best of their ability.  This is all fine and good until the humble Senator turns a blind eye to the various examples of his party and our government skirting the laws for their own gains.  It is really hard to take the man seriously when he apparently holds a double standard for when laws should be enforced but then is outraged when the standards are not upheld.  If Senator Burch wants the people to have more respect for the laws then shouldn’t Senator Burch and his colleagues be the ones to start by setting a good example?  Otherwise, why is it any surprising the people would sooner listen to Collie Buddz than an unelected politician?

Finally we can look at the job argument.  Senator Burch advocates a crackdown on all marijuana users because use is so high that few are available for job opportunities in the police, fire and corrections services.  This argument is rather meek given that it is highly likely that individuals convicted and given criminal records for marijuana possession would also be ineligible for these jobs.  Admittedly the logic is that crackdowns would act as a deterrent and yet they haven’t proven effective in the many different times they’ve been tried.  Cracking down only further limits the pool of available individuals and near guarantees those that are convicted are left with fewer alternatives to a life of crime.  This as opposed to working with the community to promote healthier and more active lifestyles while encouraging the reduction of marijuana use such that eligible applicant numbers can improve.

So it seems we’ve been launched back into the marijuana debate with Senator Burch’s recent comments.  While it is great that Senator Burch has the resolve to stand firmly behind his principles, his resignation threat doesn’t carry a whole lot of weight.  The condemnation of cherry picking laws to enforce falls as a rather weak argument considering the source.  Finally, should we be doing more to work with the community to promote healthy alternatives to marijuana use rather than cracking down as a quick fix to a problem not easily solved?  Regardless is it highly likely we’ll see a brief fervor of opinionated discussion on the topic with little changing and a return to the lull that precedes the next time this issue bubbles to the surface.

Looking back to Q1 2007: How did we end up here?

It’s 2010 here in Bermuda.  We’re facing an ongoing recession likely to last into the foreseeable future, a run away budget, job losses, glut in real estate, a downturn in construction and rising youth violence.  It could be said that we’ve had better years.  Recent opinion polls have suggested many things, among them low confidence in Bermuda’s economy.  By comparison 66 percent of people polled by the local daily The Royal Gazette thought in 2007 Bermuda’s economy was in good shape while today only 18 percent would agree.  How did we get here and should we have seen it coming?

Leading businessman Peter Everson responded to the recent poll results suggesting a poor outlook for the island’s core sectors of financial services, construction, and tourism/hospitality. 

"It is the financial services sector that brought the crisis upon the developed economies because it grew too large; it is now in a downturn and it is likely to be some time before it bottoms out let alone promotes net new hiring,"

Addressing prospects for the construction industry Mr. Everson suggested unnecessary glut was due to cause difficulties as office space goes unrented and hotels have only modest occupancy. 

"It is unlikely that there will be significant new building activity until some part of this slack has been taken up,"

Looking back to 2007 our economy was booming.  Finance Minister Paula Cox had noted that for more than five budgets in a row Government was bringing in more revenue than projected.  Chamber of Commerce vice president Philip Barnett commented on the wealth of opportunity created by international business.  They were good times.  So how did we come to this point today?

In 2007 while enthusiasm was high there were those in the community voicing concern that perhaps things were a little too good.  UBP Senator Bob Richard’s deserves some credit for having pointed out that we may be showing signs of overheating and having suggested steps to help slow our ascent.  Though who could have known that things would take a rather abrupt turn?  How could it have been conceived that a housing bubble in the United States would pop and in turn our own bubble would too?  Perhaps the signs weren’t crystal clear but was the writing on the wall and did we do ourselves any favors by not paying them greater heed?

We first caught wind of potential troubles in the US housing markets in February 2007 as we questioned the impact of the recent rapid interest rate hikes on homeowners, especially those who were on variable rate mortgages.  Had these individuals overstretched their budgets such that they would be unable to pay?  If it were to create a trend that continued, we mused, could it cause housing values to continue their descent and bring forth an overall devaluation of the housing markets, thus putting more and more people underwater? 

It was near this time that Government was frolicking in its wealth as it threw money at various ventures all while being rather limited when it came to providing details of how it was being spent.  While some expressed their concerns about graduation rates having greater importance it was determined that youth would best develop via greater investment in sport and thus some $15 million was pledged to take Bermudian football to the next level.  This on top of the $14 million that was already allocated to and spent on youth sport the previous year.  The impact of that funding some three years later is less than clear as youth have become more troubled and education has worsened.

Concerns were raised that growth was reaching such a pace that home ownership was even being pushed out of reach.  This while housing demand had outstretched supply to such a state that average Bermudians were being sidelined in terms of options to even just live let alone own.  Housing was high in demand as the BHC waiting list continued to grow to nearly 600 strong.  People went to such extents to seek nearly any alternative to Bermuda’s skyrocketing cost of living that they’d taken to living in derelict buildings.

The strains of growth were breeding growing resentment towards our guest workers despite the heavy reliance we have on them to keep money flowing in our local economy.  We examined how a large part of our problems with regards to growth was the lack of infrastructure geared towards handling the influx of additional guest workers.  Inadequate housing for expats was the focus of considerable analysis as to the causes for our supply/demand issues.  This all while tourism was being spun as a rejuvenating force and once again a towering economic pillar.  External independent analysts however countered this as they pointed to trends of “secular decline”.  Is it any wonder that many questions were raised about whether tourism would actually sustain its pace?  Was it indeed a fit place for us to have dedicated so much focus and so many resources at the time?

It would seem that despite public perceptions being high in 2007, under the surface many problems were brewing.  There were signs that perhaps money had become a bit too easy both home and abroad as some questioned the risks of an economy overheated and the possibility of what could happen if the bubble bursts.  Bermudians were quickly being outpaced by growth as we lacked the ability to satisfy the demands that accompanied it.  Unsurprisingly resentment grew while certainly not helped by those willing to throw fuel on the fire.  While things were certainly good it was not entirely clear that they’d remain that way forever.  Indeed, in good times it can be easy to get caught up in the party and forget all about the mess that’s left to be cleaned up when the party ends.

School closures: More detail needed

The announcement of the closure of a number of primary concerns has unsurprisingly yielded a string of concerned gut reactions from the public.  The largest issue with the proposed closures are not the closures themselves but the way the idea has been communicated to the public.  Indeed, it could be a colossal mistake just as it easily could be a brilliant and necessary cost saving measure.  The problem, at present, is that the public hates the idea and that’s largely due to how it came to view and the utter lack of any suggested details or plan forwards.

The announcement to close primary schools is rather shocking.  Primary schools aren’t the ones underperforming and the suggestion that another massive high school should be created risks repeating the same mistakes of the past when high schools were consolidated into behemoths.  While the announcement lacks teeth at this stage government needs to carefully balance public opinion with the need to cut unnecessary costs.  To sacrifice one or the other would be terribly unfortunate.

What we’re lacking most is a clear cut justification as to why these schools should be closed.  Where are the supporting numbers to back up claims of fiscal savings with evidence?  Where are the supporting numbers to showcase that the best performing schools are not the ones being sacrificed?  Where are the numbers to showcase that the best teachers will be retained?  Where is the plan for how things will be consolidated such that we can be confident that things will go smoothly.  While admittedly government could well have been in the process of preparing these details prior to the leak it could also be surmised that an individual involved had their own concerns and opted to leak the info to the press to slow things down.  The best defense the government can make at this point is to start supporting their reasoning with facts and clear evidence that this is a well planned move and not a gong show.

In a breaking news piece in The Royal Gazette, island Principals lay out their demands for the information they need in order to appreciate and accept the decision to close various schools.  Subsequently here is a list of things that would likely be helpful to their case if presented in the form of a statistical breakdown.  One such that all primary schools are included by means of comparison so that we can be clear as to the logic behind why it is necessary to close a specific few.

Cost of school per student

Average student performance and progression

Average teacher experience

Average teacher salary

Number of students

Number of teachers

Average student/teacher ratio per class

Average student performance per ratio

Undoubtedly many more metrics could be proposed and provided to help provide a clearer picture.  Certainly a much better case could be made if such metrics were as government needs all the help it can get in saving face on this move.

Stellar police response

I’m long overdue at posting anything.  One item that has been near the top of my list is recognition of the police’s response to my burglary.  It turned out to be far more than I originally would have imagined including a quick response to my initial report, multiple follow-up visits for detailed accounts of what happened, what was stolen and also fairly intensive fingerprinting.  Ultimately the police apprehended a suspect who apparently had been released on parole only a couple months prior.  Subsequently patrols and police presence in my area have seemingly increased as it is apparent that the police have been stepping up their efforts if not in my area but throughout the island.  Overall I find the police have done an excellent job and should be commended for their efforts.

Quite unfortunately I’m still dismayed that I got burgled in the first place, which isn’t the police’s responsibility at all.  If ultimately found guilty in court, the suspect apprehended is an individual who rolled out of prison only to quickly return to crime.  He’s a young guy aged 19 with a rather troubled past so while not inexcusable it helps put pieces of the puzzle together.  It was suggested that the reason he stole what he did was that he was selling the items for drugs and that conclusion seems to make sense.

Getting broken into frankly sucks but having gone through a similar experience when I was in university made things a bit easier.  In this case, mostly smaller items were taken and in such a way that if I hadn’t had an eye for specific details I probably wouldn’t have noticed immediately.  The reason being the burglar made attempts to cover his tracks and actually managed to get in at least twice before I was certain I’d been burgled.  By comparison when my place was broken into in Canada they pretty much took everything and tore my place apart looking for anything I may have hidden.  It was a much more devastating experience.

What bothers me most about this experience more so than the loss of my possessions or the invasion of my home and privacy is how we failed this individual and as a society are likely failing so many others.  While indeed not everyone is savable I’d like to think that most are.  How is it that we managed to jail this individual and yet later release him back onto the streets only to succumb to criminal activities in what may well be caused by a drug addiction?  How did we not rehabilitate this individual to help him deal with and manage his addiction?  How did we not provide him with the tools and hope for a better life to stay away from drugs and crime?  How many others out there are just like him and how long will it be before more break-ins or worse occur as these individuals roll in and out of our justice system without remorse or recourse?

Usual lack of detail

An article in today’s Royal Gazette bears the title “BDA on finances: ‘There is a better way’” and yet the quotes from ‘The Alliance’ only contain criticisms of the PLP’s budgeting and no actual details on what they would do differently that would be any better.  It’s another repeat of the story where they make nice airy statements with no tangible value.  Further, their criticism amounts to being no different than the same criticisms we’ve heard from the UBP the last few years.  There may be ‘a better way’ but this writer has yet to hear any evidence of ‘The Alliance’ knowing what it actually is.

If we really wanted to talk about revolutionary changes to our budgeting we could examine participatory budgeting as a means to achieve greater involvement by the people and encourage greater accountability.  What is participatory budgeting?

Participatory budgeting is a process of democratic deliberation and decision-making, in which ordinary residents decide how to allocate part of a municipal or public budget. Participatory budgeting allows citizens to present their demands and priorities for improvement, and influence through discussions and negotiations the budget allocations made by their municipalities.^[1]

Participatory budgeting is usually characterized by several basic design features: identification of spending priorities by community members, election of budget delegates to represent different communities, facilitation and technical assistance by public employees, local and higher level assemblies to deliberate and vote on spending priorities, and the implementation of local direct-impact community projects.

Various studies have suggested that participatory budgeting results in more equitable public spending, higher quality of life, increased satisfaction of basic needs, greater government transparency and accountability, increased levels of public participation (especially by marginalized or poorer residents), and democratic and citizenship learning.^{[citation needed]}

Participatory budgeting is an example of an idea of things successfully being done elsewhere that we could try here and yet all we’re getting is the same old, “they’re doing a horrible job but we could do better” line.  As usual it comes without the evidence or examples that demonstrate that there is any truth that they could actually be any better or do things any different.

If ‘The Alliance’ really wanted to stand out they could look for ideas like participatory budgeting or other novel ideas out there that are new, different and provide greater opportunity for involvement of the people.  They could adopt them not only as a tenant for election, but do more to demonstrate their potential by being the change they want to bring.  They could show us the power of participatory budgeting by making it a core element of how their party budgets themselves.

Robbed

Today I came home to discover that my apartment had been broken into and a bunch of things were stolen.  It’s sadly another sign that Bermuda is not headed in a good direction.

Airport parking issues

It would be incredibly helpful and appreciated if those responsible for airport parking could clearly mark the parking areas. 

Last year I had my sister drop the car off at the airport for me so I could drive myself home.  Upon getting to the car I noticed a parking ticket on the window.  I checked the parking payment slip and the time was correctly covered so I read the details and discovered that the parking ticket was for having parked in the staff parking zone.  I was confused as the area didn’t look like the staff parking zone.  I had to circle the parking area to discover that one entrance labeled the parking area as a staff zone, but others did not.  The zone simply wasn’t labeled very well. 

Apparently, this has happened to at least a couple people as I was cleaning out my new car (the old one was on its last legs last year) and found a parking ticket and payment slip under the seat.  Panicking thinking I’d forgotten to pay a ticket I checked the dates and noticed it was from the month before I’d actually purchased it.  Funny enough it looks like a similar situation, they’d paid for parking and yet had a ticket noting that they’d parked in the staff parking zone. 

These similar situations suggest that there may still be an issue with the signage of the staff parking zone and makes me wonder how many people end up with tickets because of it.  It is these kinds of situations where I wish there were hassle free ways to submit this kind of feedback as it is unfortunate that people can get tickets having not known they were parking in the wrong area.

A second chance to get things right

With all the recent shootings we’ve been witness to of late and no signs of them abating, we need to consider all possible options for addressing the social issues contributing to this growing problem.  Yesterday’s Royal Gazette outlines a program from North Carolina called Ceasefire which has been used to get people to mend their ways and consider better approaches to life.  It’s a worthy program worth serious consideration because we need to consider every opportunity to bring peace to our community.

Quoting Newsweek the Royal Gazette outlines the program’s success: "[Criminologist David Kennedy] got the cops to try a new way of cleaning up the corners. They rounded up some young dealers; showed a videotape of them dealing drugs; and readied cases, set for indictment, that would have meant hard time in prison. Then they let the kids go. Working with their families, the police helped the dope dealers find job training and mentors. The message, which spread quickly through the neighborhood, was that the cops would give kids a second chance but come down aggressively if they didn't take it. The police won back trust they had lost long ago (if they ever had it). After four years, police in High Point had wiped the drug dealers off the corner. They compared the numbers to the prior four years and found a 57 percent drop in violent crime in the targeted area.”

This program outlines an excellent opportunity to give people who have made the wrong decisions the opportunity and incentive to start making the right ones.  Here’s how David Kennedy himself describes the program on the U.S. Department of Justice website.

Here is how the High Point Intervention works: A particular drug market is identified; violent dealers are arrested; and nonviolent dealers are brought to a "call-in" where they face a roomful of law enforcement officers, social service providers, community figures, ex-offenders and "influentials" — parents, relatives and others with close, important relationships with particular dealers. The drug dealers are told that (1) they are valuable to the community, and (2) the dealing must stop. They are offered social services. They are informed that local law enforcement has worked up cases on them, but that these cases will be "banked"(temporarily suspended). Then they are given an ultimatum: If you continue to deal, the banked cases against you will be activated.

This in comparison to our present process of immediately charging people, having their names strewn all through the papers, ultimately convicting and imprisoning them only to watch as they leave prison without cause to do much but repeat the cycle as they leave with criminal records and difficulties in finding jobs.  Does it need to be this way?  Can we help people get off the path to destruction early enough to get them back on the right path? 

Mr. Kennedy also goes into depth about the program’s positive impact on race relations and bridging the gap between the police and the community, helping dispel myths held by both the police as well as the community about the crime occurring.  It managed to get people really talking to understand the different viewpoints and myths held by the police as well as the community by bringing people together to discuss and develop real solutions to the problems.

All of these conversations converged toward a "call-in," a meeting at which everyone could say to the dealers, "Enough!"

The central moment of these call-in meetings comes when community elders, parents and other loved ones look the drug dealers in the eye and say, "We love and care about you. We want you to succeed. We need you alive and out of jail. But if you do not absolutely understand that we disapprove of what you are doing, we are going to set that straight today."

The community is infinitely tougher than anyone else could ever be.

On the law enforcement side, the signal moment occurs when officers tell all the dealers in the room, "We want to take a chance on you. We have done the investigation, and we have cases against you ready to go. You could be in jail today, but we do not want to ruin your life. We have listened to the community. We do not want to lock you up, but we are not asking. This is not a negotiation. If you start dealing again, we will sign the warrant, and you will go to jail."

This strategy does several things: It puts the dealers in a position where they know that the next time they deal drugs, there will be formal consequences. It proves to the community that the police are not part of a conspiracy to fill the prisons with their children. And it frees the community to take a stand — an amazing thing to see.

Finally he outlines the programs success:

The first of these conversations occurred more than four years ago in High Point. Since then, the approach has been replicated in at least 25 other U.S. cities. In each case, the drug market evaporated at the time of the meeting; most of them have not come back. This success has been fairly easy to maintain. Most of the weight is carried by the community, which simply will not let the market come back. If they cannot deal with the situation, they have a new relationship with law enforcement, which will step in.

The difference in these communities is palpable and amazing. The larger lessons are just beginning to be clear to us: We have profoundly misunderstood each other; our current behavior has pushed us to places that none of us liked; and we have all been doing inadvertent but severe harm. We have also learned that community standards can and will do much of the work we currently try to do through law enforcement, that even serious offenders can be reached, and that we can find critical common ground.

These lessons might fundamentally reshape how we think not only about crime, but also about each other.

Is the Ceasefire program worth investigating and trying locally?  The only question is what have we got to lose?

Encouraging greater public consultation

In his most recent piece Vexed questions the Premier’s support for retroactivity in the proposed Public Access to Information legislation when provisions for such were not provided in the draft.  Another question arises though, does it really matter when the Premier supported it previously as long as the instituted law ends up containing such a provision?  Government asked for our thoughts on the draft, we provided it, they’ve revised a position.  It’s at least a rudimentary example of greater public consultation and one which should be encouraged.

Ref: PATI

Good evening Cabinet Secretary,

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on the proposed Public Access to Information Legislation.  I have a number of concerns with the proposed draft that I would like to address in my submission and I thank you for taking the time to consider them.

The provision that the law will not apply to records created prior to its introduction is of considerable disappointment as it would disable individuals from collecting historical information that could prove very valuable.  An example are statistical records collected but not published by various government departments.  As more of our people become computer savvy it is undoubtedly a possibility that many would take interest in analyzing much of the data historical data that may have proven too cumbersome  for our government to undertake.  A great example is the recent announcement of dropout rates from the study of young black males where Professor Mincy had access to non-publicized data to produce answers to questions this writer had proposed  and been very interested in discovering over two years ago.  Had such information been available it is likely that individuals would have taken an interest in producing such calculations and yet it is a great tragedy that we do not aim to make such past, present and future records available to the public.  I implore those mulling over the structure of the Public Access to Information legislation to please revise it to include historical information.

The provision that existing law prohibiting disclosure will take precedence over the new PATI law is rather concerning and introduces unnecessary complications to our legal system.  The proposed PATI legislation provides an opportunity to clean up and centralize all of our disclosure legislation under one act.   It does not stand to reason why we should separately leave in place laws that should be encompassed within the PATI legislation as if they are not, then certainly this would be a good opportunity to ensure that PATI can and does replace them.

It is of considerable disappointment that the fee structure has not been outlined in more detail as it makes it difficult to ascertain as to whether PATI will only be legislation to empower the wealthy or if instead it will be made affordable enough to empower the common man.  It would be greatly appreciated if the fee structure could be outlined in detail as well as if it could be made as affordable as possible, if not free.  Subsequently it would be appreciated if no limits were placed on the number of requests that can be made by any individual or organization.

I am rather concerned by the provision in Section 30 to prohibit access to records associated with deliberations and decision-making of public authorities.  In the interest of promoting transparency and a better democracy it would be appreciated if citizens were allowed to view as well as participate in public affairs.  By restricting such information we would do a disservice to our goals of transparency which would seem in contravention of the aims of the proposed PATI legislation.

It is disappointing that no provisions have been made to protect whistleblowers as we need to encourage people in every means possible to speak out for what is right.  Bermudians able to speak out without fear of repercussions is something we are desperately short on in our society today as we witness many cases where we would be better off if they did.  Can we not take this opportunity to promote greater protection for those individuals willing to take a stand?

Subsequently provisions for transparency of the status of all requests including the date requested, the information requested, subsequent actions as well as denied requests with reasons would also be a welcome addition to the legislation.  Documents released could also be made readily accessible for others through a publication in departmental offices and on a PATI specific or departmental websites to prevent our civil servants from being potentially bombarded with requests for the same information.

Finally in the interests of promoting transparency and greater democracy it would be appreciated if regulations are subject to a vote in the legislature rather than a negative resolution procedure.  Our interests should be to make access to information easier to achieve than the restriction of it.  A negative resolution procedure would make it far too easy to make information difficult to achieve while there are many places where we could be doing more to make information more accessible.  It is thus desirable to aim to make information easier and not more difficult to attain as to do otherwise would be inconsistent with the aims of encouraging the open and transparent government that Bermuda deserves.

Thank you kindly for the opportunity to submit my thoughts on the proposed Public Access to Information legislation and I hope that you shall strongly consider my comments and feedback.

Sincerely,

Denis Pitcher

Still swingin

The Royal Gazette reports on comments made by the Assistant Police Commissioner regarding this weekend's shootings:

[Assistant Police Commissioner Paul Wright] told the media that a small number of “well-known violent offenders intent on attacking each other” were to blame.

He said Police had identified 211 prolific offenders on the Island, some of whom have been arrested as many as 30 times in the last four years.

It sure is a good thing we didn't implement that archaic and draconian 3 strike rule the UBP were calling for last election.

Hating Microsoft

There are times when I truly regret having bought Microsoft software and this is one of them.  Continuing with my PC issues I've come to the conclusion that I'm sorry I bought Windows 7.  After replacing everything in my main pc short of the case and the dvd drive I've concluded the motherboard must have been fried.  So, I'm essentially left with a mostly new PC that most of the hardware has changed so I might as well upgrade the OS.  Seeing as I took advantage of the preorder for windows 7 upgrade I went ahead and loaded it onto the machine.  Turns out despite having provided a 'clean install' option, you're not actually supposed to choose this option if you bought an upgrade.  Thus, once you've wiped your harddrive for the clean install, you're not able to upgrade unless you go back and reinstall your previous OS.  Of course attempts to reinstall my copy of XP on my new hardware simply isn't working.  Excellent.

For your convenience your order has been split into multiple shipments

As we've noted in the past sometimes shopping in Bermuda can be a harrowing experience.  There are times you simply can't get certain items on island and it is in these cases where the Internet can prove to be a tremendous resource.  The only problem?  Many businesses in the US won't ship to Bermuda, don't accept Bermudian credit cards and worst of all, will sometimes split your order into multiple shipments 'for your convenience'.  Local forwarding firms go a long way in helping make this situation less painful and yet there is nothing like ordering a bunch of specially sized shoes from Shoebuy.com only to watch in horror as each item is shipped individually.  You're forced to suffer through paying at least the minimum fee for each item while you wonder why these firms don't offer some sort of package consolidation option.  Why?

In the last year ZipX's forwarding service has proven excellent when it comes to shipping items to the island, especially if you need them quickly.  They have a pretty quick turn around and they handle the customs hassles for you which saves many headaches.  As great as the service can be, it falls apart when it comes to being overcharged duty on a misinterpreted item or having an order split up into many small packages and being charged at least the minimum for each.  Really, who wants to end up with staggering unexpected costs?  On top of that, who wants to pay state taxes for items being shipped to Bermuda?  Quite unfortunately while the rest of their service is outstanding, they stumble with these difficulties and attempts at contacting them to suggest services such as consolidation go unanswered.  Thus we find ourselves seeking alternatives when service doesn't need to be so speedy and we're most concerned about cost.

While there are other forwarding services on island, none seem to have stepped up to provide the level of service that takes away all the hassles.  While no firms provide the ultimate hassle free solution, numerous US based forwarding companies provide baskets of alternative services.  As such it seemed like a good idea to give one a shot and after some research Shipito.com was decided as a worthy trial candidate.

Shipito is a forwarding company based in California which offers full service forwarding.  This includes a virtual mailbox with forwarding address for a small monthly fee of $10 or an annual fee of $50, a variety of services and most desirable of all, a convenient web site in which you can fully manage your account, packages and shipments.  You ship your items to Shipito where they weigh it, measure it and send you an email that it's been received.  If you're a virtual mailbox subscriber they'll even hold your package for you for up to 45 days.

You can select your shipping options of airmail, USPS or FEDEX, each of which have discounted rates and take different durations.  You can fill out your customs details, though you'll still require invoices when picking it up from the post office having used USPS and you can make special requests.  Special requests include the ability to have them take photos of the contents of your package and send them to you or any other request you may have.   You can even pre-configure these settings so packages are resent out as fast as possible.

Certainly the most useful of all is the small fee charged for consolidating packages of which you can select multiple packages and request that they repack it into one.  Shipping estimates and timelines for delivery are provided to make this helpful and easy.  Further they offer an added service that goes above and beyond: the virtual shopper.  In the case that you can't purchase something with your Bermudian credit/debit card, Shipito will make purchases for you online and in the case of a select number of stores, will make purchases in person as well.  This is the kind of service we're lacking with local forwarding firms.

While ZipX has proven to be a great and useful service where it falls short is going that extra mile to remain competitive and offer the best service possible.  Indeed, if you need to get something quickly or don't want to deal with customs hassles then ZipX can be your best option as their turnaround is fantastic.  In contrast however if you need to order multiple things and fear the wrath of split shipments, ZipX can prove to be a nightmare. Other firms like Shipito rise up to fill these gaps with their helpful online management systems and services.  While services like Shipito don't make things completely hassle free such as having to deal with customs yourself and perhaps jump through a few hoops when it comes to verifying your identity, they do give a pretty good idea of where our local forwarding services should be striving to be.  Best of all, they give us one more alternative for those times when you need to order big shoes and don't want to face the horror of split shipments 'for your convenience'.