Democratic standards continue an unabated decline under the administration of Prime Minister Perry Christie. The appointment of three sitting members of the Cabinet as Queen's Counsels, raises questions of appearance, and seems an abuse of the power of appointment.
Quite unseemly is the appointment of Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson. Normally such a recommendation is made by the attorney general (AG) to the prime minister, after consulting the chief justice. Was she the AG at the time or was there an acting AG who made the recommendation, similar to when a nolle prosequi was granted to one of her former clients?
Are we to believe that only one woman in the country is deserving of appointment? She also recommended a minister in her office, the minister of state for legal affairs.
The Ryan Pinder affair is another example of the glaring conflicts of interest in an administration beset by a just about anything goes attitude.
Pinder has left the Cabinet and his post as minister of financial services where he had specific and collective responsibility for oversight and policymaking functions in financial services and other areas. These same areas would be of immediate interest to a banking and financial services concern such as Deltec Bank where he is the "new chief legal officer, head of wealth management and a member of the bank's executive committee".
His departure for a lucrative package some estimate is at least $500,000 raises a host of troubling questions. Was Pinder approached about a job or did he go seeking one while he was minister? Was his new assignment negotiated between him and the foreign owner of Deltec while he was minister? Was the bank's board aware of the Pinder offer and pay package before it was agreed or announced? When was Prime Minister Christie informed: at the beginning, during or after the negotiations? How long were the negotiations? Did Pinder initially keep secret from the prime minister his negotiations with a foreign bank while a Cabinet minister and minister of financial services? If Christie knew about the unfolding negotiations, why did he allow his minister to remain in his Cabinet under such circumstances?
Depending on the answers to these questions, they may constitute a grave matter and a glaring apparent conflict of interest, and perhaps a breach of a code of ethics instituted by Christie in 2002, and a general breach of the public trust.

Tortured
Here, as reported in The Tribune, is Christie's tortured explanation which explains little and leaves as many questions: "I understand and in fairness to him he came to me some time ago and we discussed this. He discussed it with the deputy prime minister as well. We discussed it together and I said to him, give me time to think about it. I will give you the benefit of my advice and I said to him, come go to Cuba with me and show me all the things you were doing in trade so I have an understanding while meeting with Caribbean leaders.
"We've had that opportunity and I'm able to come back to The Bahamas, say to my Cabinet that Mr. Pinder has given me an indication that he is resigning. That's the process that took place."
One cannot make up this stuff. Those are actually Christie's words, which are revealing of his thought processes.
It seems that neither Pinder nor whomever he negotiated with has much respect for Christie and for the standards to which Cabinet ministers are to be held. Is it now open season for private concerns to raid the Cabinet for well-connected employees?
What has transpired is the minister of financial services negotiating a lucrative pay package with an institution involved in financial services and/or the prime minister aware of such negotiations and allowing them to unfold.
What is disturbing is the prime minister's odd justifications, which seem part sheer embarrassment at being dissed by Pinder, and part an attempt to cloud and confuse the matter.
His comments as reported in The Tribune have made a mockery of his office: "When someone is giving [sic] an extraordinary, mind blowing offer in an economy like this and they're young and they have kids, no matter how wealthy they are that offer is not just dollar and cents, it's a prominent position in a banking order that will enable you to become one of the power brokers on a global basis. That's what Ryan Pinder is looking forward to, being a huge player in financial services in the world."

Contradicted
Why should not the same be said of any minister? Christie then contradicted himself: "Those are opportunities where you may say, 'Well, maybe he shouldn't have done it because of service and service commitment and what not.'"
What exactly did he mean by "what not"? What has so annoyed many PLPs is that Pinder, having been the beneficiary of the party's coveted nomination for the Elizabeth constituency in 2010 by-election, then being appointed to the Cabinet, has now run off at midterm for a huge pay package even as other ministers remain in their posts.
As reported in The Tribune, Christie made other related bizarre statements: "Wherever I have gone in the region with respect to his performance as minister he has been applauded. He has been recognized for having a grasp of his ministry. I have gone to the United States of America and I have found, much to my surprise, the high esteem they held for him in areas of regulation."
Leaving aside the obvious question as who are "they", the prime minister is stunned at the esteem in which Pinder was held? Even the more reason to keep him in the Cabinet. Of greater note, Christie actually speaks of the role of Pinder in - "areas of regulation".
Which makes Christie's other statement seemingly contradictory: "And it's the regulatory part of it that Allyson Gibson deals with as attorney general, that is the one that you might say does favors for people. But if you look at the record, and you look at what (Mr. Pinder) has been saying, what he would have been doing, it's very difficult to say that he would have been feathering his nest or the nest of the people he's going to work for."
What does Christie mean by the attorney general's office being, "the one that you might say does favors for people"? Might he say more on this matter?
Pinder said of his new assignment that it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Is that not also the case of serving in the Cabinet? For all his talk of service, Pinder abandoned his Cabinet post in less than three years.
The country afforded him the opportunity to serve in government and to fly around the world at taxpayer's expense, making contacts and gaining experience, all of which has now resulted in a lucrative new assignment.
Pinder has been roundly and justifiably criticized for his speedy departure from Cabinet, including by PLPs, who weathered criticism for parachuting him into the Elizabeth constituency, even though he had previously shown scant interest in Bahamian politics

Golden
He became one of the PLPs golden boys, and was twice elected by voters in a constituency in which most voters are black. Notably, both major parties have worked hard to have white Bahamians run on their tickets.
One writer asked: "Why are people so angry about the resignation of Ryan Pinder?"
Her answer: "Because Mr. Pinder is a white Bahamian and he has let black Bahamians down."
She continues: "How do we know this? Because white people in the country don't really care that Mr. Pinder has resigned... As far as white people are concerned, what's the big deal?
"...Mr. Pinder does not need the money. He comes from a wealthy family, so money could not have been his primary motivation for bowing out."
Had Minister of State Khaalis Rolle, for instance, resigned under similar circumstances he would have been roundly criticized by this columnist and many others, not because Rolle is black, but because of certain principles at stake. Pinder is being criticized not because of the color of his skin, but because of the content of his political character in this instance.
Disturbingly, some white Bahamians have given Pinder a pass precisely because he is white and they hold him to a different standard than others. Had Rolle left the Cabinet, many of these same few white Bahamians would have heavily criticized him.
How the writer presumes to know that white Bahamians don't care is anyone's guess, though one suspects it is through limited anecdotal evidence, and not dispositive. Does the writer presume to speak for white people?
More disturbing is the intended message to black Bahamians: Since some white people don't care, black Bahamians criticizing Pinder should not be so concerned.
Then there is this non sequitur that because Pinder is wealthy that he didn't primarily leave for money, as if having access to family money, makes one less inclined to leave for a "mind-blowing" amount of money.
If Pinder does have access to such money and is considered so gifted, why did he decide to be so stingy in his public service, whereas others continue to sacrifice for the national good?
Notions of white privilege and exceptionalism are alive and well in the mindsets of some, who often hold black Bahamians to a higher standard than they hold certain white Bahamians, including it seems in this instance, Ryan Pinder.

o frontporchguardian@gmail.com, www.bahamapundit.com.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian