No problem with terminology in BVI’s ‘exemption’ laws — Fraser
While other legislators seemed troubled with the interpretation of various terms in the BVI’s ‘exemption’ laws, Third District Representative Julian Fraser had no such trouble.
Legislators debated the merits of various terms in Section 67 of the Virgin Islands Constitution. This section speaks to House of Assembly (HOA) members vacating their seat in the House if they or their firm enter into a contract with the government.
However, a clause in the same law allows for an exemption if the member discloses the nature of the contract and their interest “before becoming a party to a contract, or before or as soon as practicable after becoming interested” in the contract with the government.
The term “as soon as practicable” in particular, offered a challenge to both Premier Andrew Fahie and Opposition Leader Marlon Penn. This prompted Penn to request an official interpretation from the Attorney General on the usage of the term.
However, the Third District Representative was under no such burdens regarding the term’s usage.
Fraser also refuted a proposal by the Premier to amend the law to request HOA members to disclose their government contract within three months of getting it; as apposed to “as soon as practicable”.
Fraser said three months may not always be enough time.
According to Fraser, there was no need to fine-tune a system that he felt has been working well for many years.
“The language that we have here – practicable – I don’t have a problem with the word ‘practicable’ at all,” he said.
You’re exposing yourself, no unnecessary exemptions needed
The Third District Representative also said the constitution offered enough tools to allow for transparency with legislators.
“We get ourselves involved in things that are better left alone,” Fraser said.
He further stated that he didn’t see the need for the “deliberate” nature of the presentation by the Premier in requesting the exemption of Deputy Speaker Neville Smith who’s quietly had a government contract for the last eight months.
“We have to be careful with the language in the law. I’ve seen where people come to the House of Assembly seeking exemption for contracts that have no need to come to the House of Assembly,” Fraser added.
He said the argument is usually made that this is sometimes done out of an abundance of caution for transparency’s sake.
“You’re exposing yourself. For what reason? There is no reason to expose yourself. It is clear that if you have a contract with a statutory body, it has no reason coming before the House of Assembly for exemption,” Fraser argued.
Many other security bids, but Neville Smith had one of the lowest
Copyright 2024 BVI News, Media Expressions Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.
We would ever consider Frazer a good politician! Well done old man
Very concerned that Fraser is sporting an Adolf Hitler moustache. This does not bode well for us.
His sense of style at time can be a “scratch your
head”moment.
You have a keen eye.
Where did Mr. J. Fraser obtain his law degree?
Tis tru…lol
Dunno , but maybe he can teach up at Balo.
Fraser make the laws that the lawyers follow
Wow, how outrageous! The law is there to protect the public, not the legislator. Frazer has it all wrong, when he says there is no need to “expose yourself”, meaning contracts that might be questioned. When one takes up the mantle of a legislator, and is well paid to do so, part of the deal is to avoid all conflicts of interest, or the appearance of such. Frazer, himself, has skated across this line, so it’s easy to see why he wants no changes, but that is exactly what is necessary. “Practicable” means as soon as reasonable, not as soon (or as late) as one wants. It’s a slippery slope until someone waits until they have left office to retroactively declare a conflict, simply because it was not convenient to do so, earlier. The exemption clause is meant to cover exceptions. It is not a wide open gateway to malfeasance. If Frazer really believes that, one has to look to further for reasons for the COI.
There’s no ambiguity whatsoever. It’s just a ploy to cover up. If the Premiere was in the opposition I can only imagine what he would have said.
It’s clear that Smith was in breach since disclosure should have been made (and exemption requested) before accepting the contract, or before or as soon as practicable after BECOMING INTERESTED in the contract with the government.
Apparently he failed to disclose his interest in the contract, failed to disclosed when he received the contract and waited months after he was awarded the contract to request exemption. Very sad indeed.
His sense of style at times can be a “scratch your
head”moment.
You have a keen eye.
Of course you would have no problem with it. The terminology ‘as soon as practicable’ is just another huge hole for you politicians to slide through and get out free. You people are ridiculous! And you wonder why the people want Britain to take over. You not even trying to fool us into thinking you want good governance. Flat out you DO NOT CARE.
Well said Fraser. The word is clearly defined. I agree that even saying that Smith had the lowest bid is fuel for someone looking to attack anything you say for political reasons. But what the legislators have to note is that the ppl no longer accept certain excuses without question anymore. And they should act accordingly.
WELL WE HAVE BLACK HITLER IN THE HOUSE OR AN OTTER IN SCB / THAT IS THE SIDE EFFECTS OF THE NUMBER THAT BLONDIE & ANDY PLAYED ON HIM
Of course Frazer would not have a problem with the terminology, just like he could not understand what conflict of interest meant when he was the minister and allegedly give his two brothers a contract to do work in District 3.
Bunch of t***ves.
Yep – he is st**ling money too!
How did we get to this point where all the politicians are out for only themselves? The law is there so that there is no chance that a politician will create a law or spend money that benefits him/her self…what part of that don’t you get???
All these guys been in the government dipping into the cookie jar too long. Need some new blood and some term limits.
Let this be the last of this old school nonsense that you all have been doing for years. New ones come in and you guys still trying to continue nonsense- Stop it for goodness sake. All of you.
Isn’t there a set precedence? Follow it! Resign!!!
Your wife get a big paying FSC board seat. Why would you say otherwise.
However, a clause in the same law allows for an exemption if the member discloses the nature of the contract and their interest “before becoming a party to a contract, or before or as soon as practicable after becoming interested” in the contract with the government.
WHAT IS COMPLICATED ABOUT THIS???