Editorial | Valrie Curtis matter alive

After nearly three decades working in Jamaica’s Parliament – the last three years as its Clerk – Valrie Curtis retired yesterday.

Her final act was a gracious memorandum, sent by email to all members of the legislature, thanking them for having allowed her to fulfil “my purpose to the Parliament”.

“I have had a plethora of experiences during this time and the best of them will remain with me forever, as treasured memories outweigh those easily forgotten,” Ms Curtis wrote.

The Clerk’s retirement was formally acknowledged by a terse 62-word, two-paragraph statement by the Commission of Parliament that expressed “our gratitude to Ms Valrie Curtis, Clerk to the Houses of Parliament, for her long and dedicated service”.

Given recent circumstances – which even Ms Curtis would be hard-pressed to place in her easily forgotten column of experiences – she is unlikely to expect, or want, a special sitting of the House, or any segment thereof, when she is eulogised by members on both sides of the aisle.

But Ms Curtis’ retirement and departure shouldn’t be an escape hatch from the implicit undertaking by Edmund Bartlett, the leader of government business in the House, and the Speaker, Juliet Holness, to address Mrs Holness’ unfortunate, and publicly released letter to the Clerk on the eve retirement, questioning Ms Curtis’ competence, if not integrity. The Clerk was accused of “gross dereliction of duty” and of bringing Parliament “into disrepute”.

UNFATHOMABLE

If those claims were true, and Ms Curtis had not retired, it is unfathomable that she could have continued as the Clerk, having clearly lost the confidence of the Speaker. Yet, the incident had the scent of Ms Curtis being thrown under the bus – without due process and in furtherance of a plunking ruling by the Speaker that was underpinned with obduracy.

The question now, from a human resource management perspective, is if, and how, the issue was resolved and whether Ms Curtis was afforded a fair hearing in accordance with the rules of the civil service.

Or, has the matter died with Ms Curtis’ retirement and does that letter remain on her personnel file, where Ms Holness indicated that it was placed?

If it is expunged, that should be publicly announced, given the publicity created by the Speaker when she caused it to be distributed to all MPs.

The sequence and context of this issue are important.

Last November, Speaker Holness adopted the position of her predecessor – who was forced to resign before the ruling was formalised – that reports of audits of public bodies sent to Parliament by the auditor general (AuG) would be delayed for two months, giving requisite ministers time to comment on them. Depending on who solicited them, various levels of delays were also announced for reports by the anti-corruption agency, Integrity Commission.

The decision with respect to the auditor general’s reports, Mrs Holness argued, was in keeping with the requirements of the Public Administration and Audit Act and the Public Bodies Management and Accountability Act .

She was supported by an opinion by the parliamentary counsel. However, like her predecessor, Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert, Ms Holness has declined to release opinions by the attorney general, Derrick McKoy, that are reported to have found no fault with the old practice of tabling these reports immediately as they reached Parliament.

In the wake of the Speaker’s ruling, the auditor general, Pamela Monroe Ellis, sent two reports to Parliament in December and January, which weren’t tabled.

One was with Parliament for three months and the other over two months before they were returned to AuG in late March. Ms Monroe Ellis, to whom the Clerk had previously written about the Speaker’s ruling, promptly sent them back. Ms Monroe Ellis, whose job is constitutionally enshrined, hasn’t publicly explained the reason for her action. It seems likely that she received legal opinion that there was no qualification on the types of audit reports that the constitution requires her to send to Parliament for tabling once she does them.

UNTABLED REPORTS

In between those two developments, the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) issued a statement that there were no untabled reports from the AuG with Parliament. In the meantime, the Speaker wrote to Ms Curtis, upbraiding her, allegedly for failing “to comply with agreed procedure” and “undermining the effectiveness of the institution (Parliament)”. But what specifically the Clerk failed to do wasn’t said.

Late last month, at the closing of the Budget debate and as Parliament prepared for a month-long recess, Ms Holness tabled the reports, without conceding the point. She would continue discussions on the issue with Ms Monroe Ellis.

The Opposition wanted to know about the letter to Ms Curtis. They argued for its withdrawal.

Mr Bartlett, the House leader, said that the issue was too sensitive for an open “discussion or debate” in Parliament, especially in the presence of the Clerk.

He added: “The fact is that the Speaker and the Clerk are currently in discussion on the matter and I would urge … that we respect that. Indeed, an appropriate statement will be made at the end of those discussions.”

The Opposition insisted that this was a public issue, having been made so by the Speaker’s distribution of the letter. Mrs Holness should therefore address the matter.

She responded: “I advise both for the Speaker and myself and the Clerk that we are in dialogue and will say nothing else at this time.”

The clear acceptance, and indeed promise, was that there was more to be said on the matter. It should be. That’s owed to Valrie Curtis.