Pay To Play Rumbles On

From today's Philadelphia Daily News:

The top investment adviser to Philadelphia's pension fund issued a statement yesterday acknowledging that she and her firm have made "modest contributions to a handful of political campaigns," while denying that her firm ever had any involvement in "so-called 'pay-to-play schemes.'"...

In her statement, [Tina Byles Poitevien, CEO of the Philadelphia-based FIS Group] said the lunch was attended "by approximately nine persons, all of whom had close personal relationships with Dr. Brown or his wife, Wanda Henton Brown. Mrs. Brown has been in the investment industry for at least 20 years and has been a personal friend and mentor of mine for over 10 years. Dr. Brown was then the Minister of Transportation in Bermuda and had no jurisdiction over the investment or management of Bermuda’s pension funds."

Her statement did not address who had been invited to the lunch, whether they were asked to contribute money to Brown or whether any have conducted business with the government pension funds in Bermuda...

In the statement, Poitevien said: "At no time has FIS Group sought to influence government decisions regarding investments in favor of any particular person or investment firm. At no time has FIS Group had any improper or illegal dealings with government officials or investment managers or advisors."

Comments

[Tiger Bay on 21.04.05 at 18:19]

Liar cheat crook.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.04.05 at 18:26]

Tiger,

Becasue you have your views on Ewart Brown and the rest of the PLP anything anyone says contrary to what you believe will be deemed by you to be untrue.

Are you saying that as Minister of Transport Ewart Brown had some control over the pension fund and its investments? How do you know who he and/or his wife knows on a personal basis?

Sir John Swan and Collin Powell have been close friends for a long time, how do you know that nothing similar happened when Sir John travelledto Washington?

[loki on 21.04.05 at 19:26]

Sorry, Guilden - no two ways about it: it's a blatant 'pay to play' scheme, designed to give the participants an opportunity to curry favour with the present government in return for cash. Whether or not the Minister concerned was actually able to influence the award of pension schemes very much is neither here nor there. There can be no serious doubt that Dr. Brown was dangling a carrot here in return for cash and the particpants believed that they would benefit from paying up, which is what the scheme was apparently designed to achieve. I'm not being facetious when I say this, but have you been closely following this story? There's much more to it than the above item. Very disappointing, especially bearing in mind that I actually think that Dr. Brown has done a good job for his ministries and is one of the best speakers in the party.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.04.05 at 19:30]

Loki,

I know what I have read and what people on this site have said. Maybe you can enlighten me further. What elements of it am I missing?

Thanks.

[Tiger Bay on 21.04.05 at 19:34]

Really Guilden, this is ludicrous.

Measure of the man. Yes, I am confident that Colin Powell did not pay to play with Sir John Swan.

Hypothetical "the UBP may have done it" claims are so lame. Ewart Brown did do it. Tina Poitevin has been embroiled in similar scandals. What is the PLP going to do about it?!

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.04.05 at 19:36]

I guess if any of those nine persons who were at the lunch or the companies they represented were appointed in any capacity on the pension fund then I could have ben a pay to play situation and further investigation needs to be carried out. Please correct me if I am wrong but I have seen nothing to evidence that any were appointed in any capacity. If that is true what really is the big deal?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.04.05 at 19:45]

Tiger,

I just knew you were going to come back with that UBP did it crap. That was not why I wrote but anyway take as you wish.

Say what you will but you know nothing about what goes on behind closed doors. Obviously you believe that Sir John is clean as a wistle. Unlike you I will vouch for no man.

As I said in my last post show me that one of the persons present at the lunch received a contract and I will take your side on the matter. Until then I will give Ewart Brown the benefit of the doubt, as should be done.

[Tiger Bay on 21.04.05 at 19:58]

The real sin is that he asked and accepted cash, with implied influence.

Why do you think the lunch was held in the first place? Just a few friends? Oh please! you discredit yourself.

[The Limey on 21.04.05 at 20:06]

Tom Vesey explained very nicely what's wrong about this whole play-to-pay situation in last Friday's Bermuda Sun. Worth a read.

[big bad wolf on 21.04.05 at 21:21]

The Doc just sails his boat to close to the wind sometimes he gets away with it and other times he does'nt. It seems he cannot shake some of those habits he learned while living in the States. He says he is Bermudian but sometimes he seems so American.I thought the just friends excuse is used for other more loving emergencies. "Book him Dano...he has his hand in the cookie jar!"

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.04.05 at 21:30]

Tiger,

You say I discredit myself. Let me make something very clear to you if I beleived a sitting MP had done something as serious as you claim Ewart Brown has done I would approach him about it and demand he explain himself. If you don't believe me ask David Saul and Jerome Dill about how I approached them in a meeting with us young, black professionals regarding Michael Collier's statement that blacks are not promoted in the bank because of a lack of education.

It just makes me laugh to no end that you will rant and rave here because you feel so strongly about this matter but I'll bet as an electorate you would not raise the issue directly with Ewart Brown.

You know why? Because you do not have the guts to stand up and take responsibility for your words. If you feel so strongly about this then stop complaining here an step out and do soemthing.

Nothing ever changes or gets accomplished without action.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.04.05 at 21:41]

Tiger,

I mut apologise to you for the tone of my post but in reality the elected officials work for the voting population and it is the voting population that needs to take Members of Parliament to task.

I just wish people in Bermuda were not so afraid to truly speak their minds, after all is that not what democracy is, being abl to freely express your opinion and concerns?

I was raised to express my opinions no matter who is present, especially a politician who is employed by the people and answers to the people. My expressions may have gotten me in trouble from time to time but at least there is no question as to what I feel.

[big bad wolf on 21.04.05 at 21:56]

Guilden the Bermuda people have the Government they deserve. When they want to get off their asses and make things better or change the Government ..they will. Who knows what that Tiger does when he is not on line at Limey. Since we do not know lets hope that Tiger is hunting for a better Bermuda ^..^

[Andrew on 21.04.05 at 22:41]

Guilden, I agree...you do your reputation and credibility a diservice by defending Dr. Brown on this matter.

It is the nature of all Governments to be presented with conflicts of interests and opportunities for self promotion. The measure of a government is the extent to which it upholds its ethical obligations.

The Pay-to-Play scandal reeks, and unfortunately for all of us, the stench lingers.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.04.05 at 22:53]

Andrew,

I have never defended Ewart Brown what I have said is show me where anyone who attended the lunch received a contract.

If contracts were given afterward than fine I will change my view. However, if no contracts were given then I see no big deal.

I am simply giving Ewart Brown the benefit of the doubt. I see nothing wrong with my position on this matter. How am I defending him?

[peter johnson on 21.04.05 at 23:37]

I have seen a copy of the letter written by Tina BP to the Finance Dept where she uses many of the quotes picked up by Limey and goes onto to expand on the value that the Bermuda Pension Funds have received. Crucially, the letter sets out categorically the people at the lunch and then also at the birthday party for her husband when Calvin White attended.

For the record, the letter says that NO 'cash' exchanged hands at the second birthday party event but 4 individuals passed over $2,500 each at the lunch that Dr Brown attended. He therefore received $10,000 and not the $30k reported in the press.

REMINDER AT THIS POINT - DR BROWN RECEIVED $10,000..... TOOK IT, DID NOT DECLARE IT, DID NOT REPORT IT ALLEGEDLY TO THE PARTY. DID NOT ENTER INTO THE MEMBERS REGISTER IN THE HOUSE.

They all were individuals representing funds that were either already 'involved' in managing Bermudian funds or as in the case of the 4th contributor, a fund who was looking to be appointed in the near future according to Tina BP.

I despair of the procedures in this country ......no accountability, no follow through with independant investigations and the population just accept this behaviour. government ministers are there to look after OUR money.

No surpise here that Dr Brown has taken legal advice '...not to comment on matters at this stage.'

Too right - guilty of massive conflict of interest at best and now needs to engage legal support and advice BIG time to create a web around this sorry affair. We await his slippery story where a 'way through' will be spun once the lawyers have been able to pick FEW the shreds of hope from the various accounts of his activities in this matter.

Alternatively, just tell the truth and let the honest man in the street see for himself.!!

GOD HELP US........10 YEARS FROM NOW AND WHAT WILL WE BE LIVING IN HERE.

[jake on 21.04.05 at 23:45]

guilden,

I am deeply concerned by this. They were not his friends. When telephoned for interviews they barely knew him.

It is ridiculous in the extreme. The consultant has a huge impact over who gets allocated cash. That she could use that influence to fund raise for Dr. Brown is what is terrible.

It is exactly as it looks and we should not be afraid to call it such.

That the money never made its way to the party or the register of members says much more. That he is silent screams the loudest.

This is a scandal and a low point. Let's just be honest about that.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.04.05 at 23:50]

Peter,

You say that you have seen a copy of a letter written by Tina BP. Taking your word for than my entire view on this matter has changed and I think the actions of Ewart Brown are nothing short of criminal. It will be interesting based on your writing what the final outcome will be.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.04.05 at 23:51]

Further, it matters not if the amount is $100k, $10K or $1K.

[mat on 22.04.05 at 07:57]

guilden,

ethical behavior is beneficial for us all. take a look at the sun editorial posted by limey, it clearly explains the slippery slope of pay to play. try and understand what occurred. it really stinks.

[Tiger Bay on 22.04.05 at 08:23]

There would be immense anger if this activity took place IN Bermuda. In some respects, its even worse when it takes place OUTSIDE Bermuda as it gives the impression that our politicians and system are corrupt. In this time, when Bermuda is under scrutiny as a jurisdiction, that is extremely troublesome.

You can't have one Minister saying "we have world class supervisory systems" and another accepting cash with for implied influence over governmental processes and activities.

It's that simple.

[ruby tuesday on 22.04.05 at 10:05]

One of the significant problems that Bermuda faces is that the politicians here fail to grasp that the core tenets of a represenatative democracy are accountability and transparency. Bermuda is a small place with an unrepresentative electorate so that it is inevitable that conflicts of interests arise. However it is how these are dealt with that matters. The reaction to natural scrutiny into Browns rather murky transactions should set alarm bells ringing. Anybody unlucky enough to catch the interview on ch.11 last night with some freakish looking former PLP luminary who was allowed to deliver a rambling incoherent broadside against legitimate scrutiny of politicians will understand that Bermuda has the politicans it deserves.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 22.04.05 at 10:30]

Ruby,

So basically what you are saying is that the Bermuda electorate, in particular those who voted PLP, primarily blacks, is made up of a bunch of uneducated idiots who don't know what is best for the country, thus they have choosen the PLP as the party to govern Bermuda.

Care to make that statement in a public forum?

[ruby tuesday on 22.04.05 at 10:46]

Yes Guilden, that is exactly what I'm saying. Unlike you to make a knee jerk reaction that completely fails the grasp the subtleties of the other persons post. Liquid breakfast again?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 22.04.05 at 14:11]

Ruby,

Actually maybe it was because I didn't have a liquid breakfast. LOL

[Sarah on 22.04.05 at 15:16]

hey, peter johnson -

would appreciate it if you could get in contact with me, i had a question for you? Either at my email address or on 595-0156

thanks!!

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 22.04.05 at 18:09]

Peter,

"They all were individuals representing funds that were either already 'involved' in managing Bermudian funds or as in the case of the 4th contributor, a fund who was looking to be appointed in the near future according to Tina BP."

I was wondering if you knew whether or not the 4th contributor was ever appointed to handle the Pension Fund assets.

I have just read the article in the Sun carrying Calvin Smith's comments. Actually, with regard to the integrity of Hon. Eugene Cox I tend to agree. Eugene Cox was a man of great integrity and I think he truly valued the reputation of complete honesty he built up over his life, both politically and personally.

What Ewart Brown may be more guilty of than anything else is not disclosing to the House of Assembly and to the PLP. Surely, if the other 3 were already apointed as fund managers this could not be pay to play because what advantage were they going to get, especially if there level of contributions were equal and is $10,000 really enough to cause someone like Ewart Brown to risk his political career over? I really do not think so. What is $10,000 going to profit Ewart Brown?

If as Calvin Smith states, Ewart Brown had no influence over the appointment of any fund managers then this could not have been a pay to play situation.

But I guess no matter what Calvin Smith or anyone else says some people already have their minds made up and nothing will change that.

Jake, as an attorney surely you would know that to prejudge causes one put blinders on and does not allow one to see the entire picture because the mind is already made up no matter what is presented.

I agree that there may be some ethical issues here based on non-disclosure but I am really beginning to wonder if this amounts to pay to play.

[shipstones on 22.04.05 at 18:49]

He has been caught out again Guilden!
Tom Delay has same defense. "This was legal and within the rules!"...Not!
Tell me that Renee and Ewart are not very close and there friendship does not stretch to business ventures or cooperation.
The whole thing stinks!

But more relevant to Bermuda is the relationship or lack of between Mike Murphy and the government/regulators of Bermuda. This must be clearly understood and transparent.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 22.04.05 at 19:09]

Ships,

I do not disagree that the whole thing stinks but I have some doubts that this was pay to play. I have agreed that it was wrong of him not to disclose the receipt of the funds to the House and the PLP.

If anything, it appears that he may be guilty only of non-dislosure and I do not know what the House rules say about that. Are there any disciplinary procedures for non-disclosure?

[jake on 22.04.05 at 19:11]

Guilden,

My qualification as a lawyer notwithstanding, I am not representing Ewart Brown or anyone else. I am opining on the facts as presented. I think you are struggling in the face of the evidence.

First of all, $10,000 is what he received. Perhaps his goal was to raise more. Perhaps he did.

Secondly, pay to play can take place after the fact. Give me the funds to manage and I will take care of you later. Illegal activity, or immoral activity does not follow a direct line. Hell, even legal deals can take place in many directions.

Finally, it is not solely Ewart's ability to affect the pension fund placement. It is FIS's ability to directly do so. Here's how the scenario could have worked: Tina and Ewart are friends. She wants to help out with the fundraising. She has a ready stable of fund managers vying for Bermuda business and others for whom the money they get from Bermuda is essential to their fund size. These people need a good relationship with Tina. She advises the client (BDA Govt.) and the recommendation giver (Pension Commission) who rarely go against her professional advice. She invites those clients to a fund raiser and to demonstrate her Bermuda prowess, rolls out a Cabinet Minister. He is warm and affable. He promises to build a Bermuda where there is change....and folded money too.

You (fund manager) pay him. You don't know this guy from a can of paint, but you now believe that (a) you have a special relationship (b) you paid for that relationship and (c) the Bermuda market is a pay to play jurisdiction.

Welcome to the real world. Come out and play.

[shipstones on 22.04.05 at 19:56]

How did Tina get the job in the first place? Through Ewart's wife?

[peter johnson on 22.04.05 at 20:47]

I gather that the 4th manager was not appointed and i believe was on some form of 'probationary' period at the time, which then lapsed.

all of this is largely irrelevant of course.

the issue is simply:

a) potential conflict of interest and
b) non disclosure

resulting in.........

massive loss of public trust.

'House Rules' or 'No House Rules', would you want such an individual with such disregard for the responsibility to uphold decent 'public values' running any of your businesses?

Well, he is apparently running a lot of Bermuda's business!

God help us all.

[big bad wolf on 22.04.05 at 20:50]

Ships be careful of Mike Murphy...He has got a really great Right hook ^..^ POW!

[big bad wolf on 22.04.05 at 20:53]

Heah Peter you called that Girl yet?..Hmmmm Could be a hot date ..and the Week end is here Full of moon light ^.,^

[shipstones on 22.04.05 at 21:16]

You are really scary Grime

[shipstones on 22.04.05 at 21:22]

How did your Outerbridge relation get that planetarium past planning?

[Andrew on 22.04.05 at 21:28]

Jake,

Do you believe Dr. Brown's actions, and subsequent failure to disclose them, warrant his dismissal/resignation from Cabinet?

[big bad wolf on 22.04.05 at 23:34]

On Dr. Brown...an obvious YES...sad though because he has alot of good qualities too! Heah Ships I mean it Mike Murphy went to college at Notre Dame...He was a champion boxer....and he is not afraid to put them up...Good sharp mind too....Still a little perplexed why he went to the wall for Greenberg...Hope its for higher reasons....Man I'snt that Moon just LOvely...can't help myself...I just have to go howl at all that Cheese! forever yours da ^..^

[shipstones on 27.04.05 at 23:16]

Graeme,
I don't care if his grandma is a blackbelt Karate expert, the guy is bad news right now!

By the way you never answer my posts about your family history!

[just vote no on 28.04.05 at 17:30]

This why things happen in Togo, blantant corruption without remorse and a weak opposition.
The international community needs to intervene.

[Tiger Bay on 25.11.05 at 17:38]

What's wrong with pay-to-play? Quite simple: decisions are made on favours not facts.

The result? It was reported in Parliament last week that over the past three years, the rate of return on the pension fund was negative 3 percent per year. (I don't know about you, but I did a hell of a lot better than that in my personal investing).

This is crazy bad stuff as the payouts from the pension fund go through the roof over the next 30 years.

This is what we should be talking about. Every day.

[Tiger Bay on 25.11.05 at 17:47]

A little more detail: this poor performance means that in just three years, the fund is 20 percent smaller than planned, when people were already worried about how the fund would meet its obligations.

The political interference - and the results - are scandalous. But Alex Scott says its unethical not illegal and Paula Cox simply doesn't want to talk about it.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 25.11.05 at 18:14]

Now I understand pay to play....you pay to win the contract and are retained even if you lose money for the fund through poor management and investments...Beautiful!!! Arrest that Man!!!

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 25.11.05 at 18:16]

Ships my family history is not relevant...please go sail away.