GRAND Bahama co-chairman, Sir Jack Hayward, tired of being fobbed off by civil servants, now wants an accounting of the $1 million that he and his late partner Edward St George donated to the National Emergency Management Agency after last year’s destructive hurricanes.
It all started in March when Sir Jack returned to Freeport from a world cruise. Meeting with members of the YMCA, of which he is the founder, he was told of a letter that the Y had written to NEMA describing the extensive damage done by the hurricanes to its facilities and requesting urgent help. That would be no problem, Sir Jack told them. “You’ll be able to get help from the $1 million donation Edward and I gave to NEMA for Grand Bahama.”
Much to Sir Jack’s surprise, and later chagrin, NEMA turned down the Y’s request, pleading lack of funds.
A member of Sir Jack’s staff was instructed to contact Mr Canard Bethel, NEMA’s representative in Grand Bahama. Mr Bethel relayed the same message: No funds in Freeport. Sir Jack then phoned Mr Bethel himself. “Best of luck, Sir Jack, I cannot get anything out of Nassau,” Sir Jack said a sympathetic Mr Bethel told him.
Sir Jack said that his cancelled million dollar cheque was endorsed on the back as having been deposited to NEMA, Nassau, and not, as instructed by him and his partner, to NEMA, Freeport.
By now Sir Jack was becoming agitated, especially as he was receiving pleas for help from schools with leaking roofs, and non-functioning toilets.
And so he called Nassau to speak with Carl Smith, NEMA’s head man in New Providence. He explained the situation to Mr Smith and told him that he wanted an accounting of monies received by NEMA from him and his late partner, and also the funds collected by Sir Albert Miller from the Port Authority’s associated companies ﾗ over and above the $1 million private donation.
No more was heard from Mr Smith or anyone from NEMA. Sir Jack’s request was being ignored. And so Sir Jack continued to call Mr Smith’s office, receiving the usual civil service brush off ﾗ “he’s out of office”, “he’ll be in by 4.45pm”, etc. But no matter how often Sir Jack called, Mr Smith was never available. Sir Jack then started to put pressure on Mr Smith’s secretary. He informed her that if he did not hear from Mr Smith by the end of the day, he would go to the press. Sir Jack waited in his office until 6pm Monday. Still no return call, and no attempt at an explanation. By now Sir Jack’s “vexation” was really and truly “yucked up”. He picked up the telephone and called The Tribune.
His story appeared in Tuesday morning’s Tribune.
Yesterday Luther Smith, NEMA’s senior coordinator, dismissed Sir Jack’s frustration as a “misunderstanding.” (See story Government Misappropriates Hurricane Relief Funds).
He admitted that the Hayward-St George donation was deposited to the general disaster relief fund as were all other donations and, with the others, was applied nationally.
He said the fund’s guidelines would not permit government to use these funds to repair schools or any private institution, such as the Grand Bahama YMCA.
Contrary to Mr Smith’s belief, Sir Jack has misunderstood nothing. However, Mr Smith, NEMA and anyone else who thinks that funds donated for a specific purpose can be applied generally are very seriously confused and are flying in the face of almost 200 years of case law that says otherwise.
On October 13 last year at a public ceremony in Freeport a million dollar cheque, dated October 12, was handed to Prime Minister Perry Christie. The Prime Minister was very clear about the purpose of the donation.
Said Mr Christie: Mr St George and Sir Jack asked that their donation be earmarked for Grand Bahama with 50 per cent going to Freeport, and the other 50 per cent for East and West Grand Bahama. They asked that the funds be used for restoring educational facilities in Grand Bahama.
“We have to make a very special position on this because we wanted never to mix funds we collected in the disaster account with funds that would be used for public infrastructure,” said Mr Christie, who clearly understood the specific terms of the donation.
If the donation could not be used to repair public schools and places like the YMCA then the donors should have been informed before their funds were mixed with the general fund.
In Barclays v Quistclose, 1970, which involved the payment of dividends, the House of Lords decided that where money, advanced for a specific purpose, cannot be used for that purpose it takes on the character of a fiduciary trust and there is an implied obligation that the money must be returned to the donor.
The Law Lords said that this principle had been recognised in a series of cases for more than 150 years before the 1970 case.
Editorial, The Tribune
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
