Divisions over policy, process and professionalism were the catalyst for four parliamentarians, including the deputy prime minister and two cabinet ministers, resign from the government this week.

The former UPM group is understood to have been divided on a number of key issues, including a controversial plan to overhaul the National Conservation Law.

There was also concern about the lack of critical debate about the rising costs of a planned new secondary school in Cayman Brac, the lack of urgency to address beach erosion and the perceived lack of transparency in major financial transactions such as regeneration project, he Compass has learned.

The so late Sexual Harassment Billwhich all four members hoped could be brought to the next session of Parliament, was another sticking point in the discussions that led to Wednesday’s resignations.

Those issues were confirmed as triggers for the divide in a Facebook post by former Deputy Prime Minister Andre Ebanks on Friday afternoon, encouraging people to stay tuned for more information and public meetings.

The conflict was as much about the way of doing business as it was about the political divisions themselves.

Ebanks, speaking at a news conference following Thursday’s resignations, indicated that conduct and professionalism were key concerns.

“To some extent (it is about) politics, but the most important thing is that our principles and way of conduct and behavior are simply not consistent with certain parts of the existing government, which makes our positions untenable,” he said.

“We risk professional and reputational harm and, in our view, the country faces potential exposure to unnecessary risks.”

He declined to elaborate on what exactly he was referring to at this stage, but the landfill deal and conservation law amendments are understood to have been key areas of conflict this week.

Both Ebanks and former Sustainability Minister Katherine Ebanks-Wilks referenced those issues, among others, in coordinated social media posts on Friday.

McKeeva Bush, one of the seven remaining UPM members, speaking on Radio Cayman on Friday, confirmed divisions over the conservation law and acknowledged that the group had planned to introduce amendments to the legislation despite the objections of Katherine Ebanks-Wilks , who was, until her resignation, the minister responsible for that portfolio.

Asked Thursday about rumors of division over the law, André Ebanks suggested some members had been left out of key issues.

“You could deduce from the level of information that certain people have versus others that there would be some form of coordination that not everyone is aware of,” he said.

Asked to specify what had triggered this week’s action, Ebanks described a “moment of clarity” Wednesday night about the “executive’s” handling of a “high-value transaction” that sparked alarm in the cluster.

Asked whether the landfill or proposed amendments to the National Conservation Act were the root of the disagreement, Ebanks said a “whole” series of things had led to the move.

He referenced disagreements over amendments to the conservation law, which all four oppose, and suggested that some cabinet members were negotiating in the absence of their colleagues.

He added that the “totality of events” had persuaded the group that it needed to split and that the four would look to present themselves as part of a coordinated party with shared principles next time.

“We are interested in speaking to parties, groups or teams, or potential teams, to assess whether they align with our core values,” he said.

The latest split means Cayman has now had two prime ministers and three deputy prime ministers from various coalition groups since the last election. There have also been three different House Speakers during that period.

Divisions overflow

The divisions have been evident almost from day one.

But the level of rancor has increased in recent weeks, with some members openly describing conflicts within the group.

McKeeva Bush, who launched a new political organization Last month, he criticized Health Minister Sabrina Turner for not receiving the Poinciana Mental Health Center over the line, saying he would have removed her from office if he were in charge.

Bush went on Radio Cayman on Friday to detail some of the discussions that took place between members of the government this week before Thursday’s resignations.

He acknowledged a conflict with Minister Turner over his criticism.

And he confirmed there was a split among coalition members over the National Conservation Law. He is part of a group that supports amendments to the legislation.

Bush acknowledged that Sustainability Minister Katherine Ebanks-Wilks, head of the Department of the Environment and the National Conservation Council, had opposed the proposals and was unwilling to bring the bill to Parliament.

In an effort to push the legislation forward, he said Labor Minister Dwayne Seymour had agreed to bring the amendments to Parliament, adding that the UPM had received legal advice that this was permissible.

Bush said the majority of the group supported the bill and suggested that the three dissident Cabinet members had asked permission to free themselves from the doctrine of collective responsibility to vote against the changes.

He said the prime minister had not denied it, but asked that the request be made in writing.

UPM wants changes to conservation law

Bush said one of his problems with the bill was that the director of the Department of the Environment was the president of the National Conservation Council. Actually, this is not correct. Stuart Mailer is the chairman of the council.

Bush may have been referring to the fact that some technical functions of the council can be delegated to the head of the Department of the Environment, something that has emerged as a bone of contention for opponents of the law, who have suggested that it grants too much power. to a public official.

Bush also highlighted concerns that two government entities, the National Conservation Council and the Central Planning Authority, were facing off in court. However, it was unclear what an amendment to the conservation law would do to change this.

In a ruling last year, the Court of Appeal stated that the conservation council, and not the CPA, has the “final say” in deciding planning applications that are likely to have adverse effects on marine parks or other areas. environmentally protected.

Speaking more generally, Bush said he felt the law, which he voted for when it passed unanimously in 2014, had been undersold to Parliament and needed to be weakened.

“Everyone knows I’m pro-development, but I’ve put measures in place to get something out of it, and I’ve put measures in place even more recently to get more out of it, not just to stop things.”