Editorial got it wrong

allow me to respond to your editorial of Friday, 5 March, 2010, titled
“Quantity over quality” which is rather disingenuous and insulting to the hard
work put in by the Public Accounts Committee over the past eight months.

of all it is incorrect and clearly demonstrates you lack of knowledge of the
workings of the Legislative Assembly and its standing committee to attribute
the reports of the PAC to me, I need no such credit and all reference to these
reports should to the PAC itself.

this editorial does not surprise me since it follows a feature article by the
former chairman of  the PAC whose
committee did not complete and table a single report in their four years, now
he has time to be critical of the current PAC, which is actually meeting and
doing some work. The current PAC has had more meetings in nine months that his
held in four years.

find it most alarming that your reporters who attend the public hearings of the
PAC can report to you that, “ we are dismayed at the cursory fashion the PAC is
dealing with the reports” , and is left to contemplate what else in the Compass
can be believed or relied on as being accurate.

also find it difficult to believe that your editorial can conclude that the deadline
established by the PAC is mine and not that of the PAC and suggest that I am
somehow pressuring the PAC to meet some ambitious deadline.  This is not confirmed by the actions of the
PAC who by September 2009 had only laid one report on the table  and to date some six months after the deadline
only six of the 10 reports have been completed by the PAC and not all of the
five have been tabled.

editorial is no more accurate that the story your paper printed that I was
trying to delay the publication of the Auditor General’s reports, which was
proven wrong by the report tabled in the Legislative Assembly and the
amendments the PAC  requested   the Legislative Assembly to make to its
standing orders.

be more specific about the Boatswain’s Beach report, yes the language may have
been harsh and the Auditor General did suggest that in his view too much was
spent to obtain the financing but how then could he conclude it was a good

can assure you and the general public that I have read all the reports before
the PAC not once but several times; however, I have not read them looking for
sensational “tidbits” that may sell a few newspapers, nor do I make alarming or
inflammatory statements about reports to look for popularity with your reporters
and get my picture in the Compass.  

Editor’s Note:

We feel it necessary to correct Mr. Miller’s contention that the
Public Accounts Committee under its former chairman failed to complete and
table a single report. The previous PAC completed and tabled a number of reports,
including ones on post-Hurricane Ivan the debris removal contract, a report on
the Public Service Pensions Board and several auditor general’s reports on
government’s financial statements. Readers can visit
to view those reports on line.

In addition, Mr. Miller claims the editorial attributes the reports
of the PAC to him.  It does no such
thing, and in fact repeatedly refers to the reports as those from the PAC.

are also unsure of what report Mr. Miller is referring to that states he “was
trying to delay the publication of the auditor general’s reports, which was
proven wrong”.

report of 14 August, 2009, specifically attributes the quote to PAC member
Ellio Solomon.
The story then went on to state accounts
committee Chairman Ezzard Miller declined to comment for the record on the matter.
We believe Mr. Miller has us confused with another media outlet.

With regard to the
current PAC’s views on what the auditor general’s report on the Boatswain’s
Beach financing arrangements did or did not say, we simply say Mr. Miller and
the PAC are entitled to their opinions, as are we.