A New York developer advertised for an engineer to carry on a project and he got three applications. He chose the one whom he felt comfortable with having reviewed several recommendations and inspected work done by him. The one that he chose name was John.
John performed reasonably well and the developer was generally pleased with his work which was to last for two years. John had a two year contract.
Six months into John’s contract, the developer advertised a second job. John applied.
The developer looked over all the applications that had come in and after reviewing all of them, he decided to give this second job also to John.
He called John to his office to offer him the job.
“John,” he said, “I like how you worked for the past six months, so I am going to award you with the second contract for which you have applied. You can start on Monday, so let us agree to the payment terms today.”
He continued, “This job involves a lot more measurements so I am offering 20% more than the last contract.”
John agreed and the contract was signed that day and the contractor informed John that the check for the new job would be available for pick up on the last working day of each month just as the previous job.
There were no discussions over whether payment for the second contract would have anything to do with the first one and indeed there could not be since these are two separate jobs involving different scopes of work.
Another subcontractor had the exact set of circumstances as the foregoing contractor. He hired David on terms similar to John’s terms except that he and David agreed that the second job would be taken up at a reduced pay. The subcontractor argued that there were only so many hours in a work day and it would be impossible for David to fulfill the duties of two full time jobs during a normal work day.
We would like our readers to take the two positions outlined above and compare them to the jobs being done by two Nevis Ministers that also work in St. Kitts.
They applied for the jobs by running for them when they became available. The electorate, the voters knew that they had another job when they voted for them.
Our guess is most persons are more concerned about them getting two salaries than the work load that they have.
They were always getting two salaries, the difference is that the salary from St. Kitts is much larger now because they are now Ministers.
They are two different jobs so they are entitled to two different pays.
Our focus as a people or as electorates should be on whether we are getting value for money. In other words, are they effectively doing the jobs which they are being paid two salaries to do.
Stop the covetous, bad mindedness by not focusing on how much money these individuals are getting but again focus on whether or not the pay is well earned and if not, hold their feet to the fire to ensure that the country and the island Nevis are getting what they are paying for.
Likewise, we must ask ourselves, will the same courtesies be expended to any of us that are not part of either government? Will the ministers nickel and dime us out of what would be due to us? Are there one set of standards for ministers and another for us? These are questions that Nevis voters must keep in mind as they head to the polls within two and a half years’ time.
The CCM robbed their political appointees out of a gratuity while they at the same time collect two salaries and will get two pensions and two gratuities.
The CCM government must have answers for these questions as the time for new elections edges closer but of course CCM may find themselves preoccupied answering charges of corruption to do with a contract with an Anguilla company for the use of three little pieces of equipment that almost look like toys at a cost of $43,000 per month. Thus far CCM has paid $500,000 [half a million dollars] .Can the government explain to us why those three toy-looking pieces of equipment were needed when Nevis has a hundred backhoes and many of them can’t find work? All that is required is for the appropriate attachment be placed on a backhoe and the work of laying pipes for the water project could have been done without the Anguillan toys at a whopping $43,000 per month.
The CCM may also have to explain how a truck which may not even be properly licensed to operate is collecting almost $200 per day whether it operates or not.
Can the CCM clear up reports circulating on the street about trips to and from Britain and subsistence paid for a UK visit that had nothing to do with government?
There is so much more. The Observer is in possession of these records and may opt to print them in the public’s interest.