Controversial Sale

The sale by the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) of a property at 35 West Parade has raised once again the issue of transparency and good business practices. It is alleged that the property was sold to Bashco Trading Company while at the same time denying long term tenant Michael Mahfood the opportunity to buy it. The Office of the Contractor General has commenced a probe into the sale.

I am not privy to the discussions held between the tenant and the UDC so I will not comment on it. My concern is that a government agency is once again selling a property without putting it out to tender. It seems that the board of this agency needs to be reminded that the property is owned by the Government on behalf of the public. It is therefore vital that every effort be made to obtain the highest price for the property particularly given the current need for funds. The only way that this can be achieved is by putting the property out to tender. I must point out that even in a tender there is no obligation to accept the highest price and very often a reserve price is set which must be met in order to achieve a sale. Additionally consideration may also be given to the intended use of the property which may disqualify certain bids.

Another reason for going the route of tendering is to achieve a high level of transparency. An independent observer will be able to review the process and determine if the sale was done at arms length. It is important to note that this process not only protects the public but also the buyer. A fair and transparent process removes any speculation about the sale. In a country where politics is often associated with corruption and favouritism, it can only be a help to reduce doubt in such transactions.
In business one should always try to do what is best for the company and the same should apply to government agencies. If we are not prepared to do so then the whole proposed transformation of the public sector is doomed to fail. The same standards of corporate governance that are applied to businesses should also be applied to such agencies.

It may be that UDC has the right to dispose of its assets without going to tender but that does not make it right. The rights of the public ought to take precedent over the rights of the company especially when that agency represents the people. Now I am not suggesting that there was any corruption involved in the process as I have no evidence to support such a claim. I do think however that if I were the minister that some persons would be looking for other work.