Dear Editor,
Having read the press release issued under the name of New Building Society Limited and published in your newspaper on Wednesday, April 23, 2008, we must first express regret that in addressing its content, we are compelled to bring out into the public domain matters that would ordinarily have enjoyed the protection of board-room confidentiality.
May we deal with the two main issues namely, the contract for the society’s new chief office building and the sudden decision to hold the society’s Annual General Meeting for 2008 in New Amsterdam, Berbice.
We categorically state that at its February 28, 2008 statutory meeting, the decision of the board to re-advertise for new tenders was not a unanimous one. With respect to the proposal referred to as having been received from another construction company, it is important to note that that company had been rejected by the NBS board in its invitation to tender on account of serious legal contentions among its partners.
Another glaring and inexcusable inaccuracy is the claim in the release that the undersigned directors changed their position after meeting with the society’s architect and quantity surveyor, a meeting which was called at the instance of the board. The undersigned directors had supported and argued for the award of a contract to the winning tender from the outset. At a meeting with the Board of Directors held on March 26, 2008, the society’s architect/consultant and quantity surveyor provided convincing answers against the re-tendering process since this was not likely to attract a more favourable response.
Despite this, at the ensuing board meeting there were three members voting for the employing of the successful tenderer and three members against. The chairman, astonishingly, refused to vote although challenged to do so by director Rockliffe who saw it as the chairman’s duty as a director to exercise his vote on so vital an issue.
The NBS has had an architect who has been providing professional services to the society and safeguarding its interests for well over 20 years. Therefore, a major concern for us was the unilateral and unwarranted decision of one director to engage another firm to comment on construction costs without any discussion at the board. We were of the firm view that the manner in which that director went about soliciting an outside opinion was biased and designed to produce a particular conclusion and amounted to an attempt to manipulate the board. As it turned out, the opinion solicited was faulty and based on erroneous information. In any event, the alternative costings that were provided did not vary significantly from the costing negotiated between the successful tenderer and the society’s architect and quantity surveyor.
In our view, the concerns expressed in the statement about “lone tender” are disingenuous. The process that was approved at every step by the board was open and fair. It began with a public request for expressions of interest, not only in the local press but also in Trinidad and Barbados. It is worthy of note that at the second stage of the tender process, when the board considered the short list of contractors to be invited to tender which was submitted by the society’s consultant, the same director in question had argued for a certain local contractor to be dropped from the list, citing problems encountered with government school construction projects. It is this same contractor that that director is now arguing should be included in a re-tender.
We wish to state for the record that we firmly believe, based on professional advice received from the society’s consultants and on the lengthy discussions at the board, that the decision to delay the award of the contract to the winning tender is a bad decision that will do harm to the integrity of the New Building Society and that will cost it financially. Costs have risen since the consultant recommended the award of the contract in October 2007, and continue to rise. The society has already lost money due to the undue delay; a re-tender will cost it even more.
We do not understand how the NBS can claim that it was being blackmailed. During our tenure on the board there was nothing that anyone or any entity party to the tendering process for the NBS’s new chief office would have done to substantiate the claim made in the press release that the NBS was being blackmailed.
For the board meeting of March 26, 2008, the last such before the annual general meeting, members were presented with the notice for that meeting headed “to be held at 2 pm on Saturday, April 26, 2008 at the Ocean View International Hotel and Convention Centre, Liliendaal,” which is in Georgetown. The intention was merely the refinement of that notice as it should appear in the public press. To our utter surprise the chairman suddenly announced that a petition had been submitted by over 200 members that the meeting be held in Berbice. It is clear that this was a device contrived from within the board to escape and avoid the criticism of those dissenting members, all from Georgetown and environs, which had featured at the special general meeting held in Georgetown on September 8, 2007. Director Rockliffe, describing their device as vulgar and cowardly added that the larger public companies would all hold their annual general meetings in Georgetown followed at times by an outreach meeting away from the city for rapport with their distant members. NBS would for the first time breach that tradition and for the unsavoury reasons suggested before. While Director Yhann at the time of the board meeting found no reason to deny the request of the petitioning members, reflecting on the negative implications for the NBS he called for a meeting to reconsider this decision but the meeting was cancelled at the last minute.
We reaffirm our resignations and our wish not to be associated with board decisions which we feel could cause harm to the good name and reputation of the NBS. Our resignations should also be seen as a protest against the direction in which some directors appear bent on taking the New Building Society, one which we feel will ultimately not serve the best interests of the members and Guyana as a whole.
Yours faithfully,
Leon O. Rockcliffe, David Yhaan
