Members of a well-heeled association are not happy over the outcome of a very private game of chance which was recently held.
Though the membership are not saying that anything underhand occurred, they are questioning the spirit behind the $100 per ticket raffle in that one of the people intimately involved with it won the top prize of several thousand dollars.
Some of these people of substance feel so strongly that they have taken to social media to vent displeasure.
One man wrote:
“I am glad that this matter has been raised regarding the Raffle 2014. I was shocked when a director . . . won the raffle. This should never have happened; it breaches all principles and procedure. In fact, I have already returned with my ticket . . . and asked for a refund. This request was not granted.
“If as a director of (my company) I had won a raffle which had been staged by us for a . . . car, I would have been shot at dawn. It just could not happen.
“Anyway, I still have my ticket and I want back my $100.”
Another wrote:
“As a member . . . and a person always mindful of the maxim, ‘justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done’, it seems to me that the (association) has done itself little credit in general public perception by the recent (purchase) and the subsequent disposal of the same . . . A situation compounded by ‘Murphy’s Law’ to the extent that even in an ostensible game of chance, one of the (items) ended up in the lucky hands of one of the directors. Another calamity in our public relations and in the arena of public perception.”
A third was adamant. He said: “For the sake of transparency and integrity . . . the least they should do is resign. . . . It is a disgrace.”
It’s now left to be seen if those involved in this matter would be racing to the nearest podium to defend their actions, or galloping to demit office.
Not impressed
Cou Cou understands that a group of non-nationals who are re-visiting the island are unimpressed with the poor standards we have attained in some key areas, which they made suggestions on to improve.
From what we were told, these visitors, who are not particularly interested in our sea, sand and sun attractions, met with a number of key people but left many an office shaking their heads in disbelief.
It seems they had hopes of being told that quite a few of the things they earlier suggested were either implemented, or were soon going to be.
Instead, they were told the opposite, or got a whole lot of talk why it would have been too challenging to proceed along the recommended path.
Those interested in the group’s work are now bracing themselves for their next report, fearful they will knock us down yet another peg.
Eyeing big accounts
Easter is some months away but a yardfowl has been overheard flying a kite about shaving funds off big personal accounts to help Government.
According to what we have heard, the individual is suggesting that accounts over $100 000 can be levied on to pull in much needed cash.
To ensure the saver is not disadvantaged, and of course to make it legal, the person would be given an IOU to be redeemed seven to ten years down the road at a higher interest rate than if they had the money in their savings.
The word circulating is that since the banks and credit unions are flushed with dollars, this would be one way to ease Government’s cash crunch without it having to continue issuing Treasury Notes and bonds, which are losing their attractiveness.
