Editorial | The Speaker’s right move

After five months of stonewalling, Juliet Holness, the Speaker, finally relented on Tuesday and tabled the opinions by the Attorney General’s Chambers on the tabling of reports sent to Parliament by the Integrity Commission (IC) and the auditor general (AuG).

As was widely suspected, those opinions argued, essentially, that there nothing wrong with Parliament’s old practice of immediately tabling the reports as they were received, except that in the case of those by the AuG, it depended on which section of the Financial Administration and Audit Act the auditor general said the reports were done. If it were Section 29, there was a green light for immediate tabling; if they were done under Section 30, the AuG should give the appropriate minister two months to comment on her findings. If in that time the minister did not send the report to Parliament with his observations, the Auditor General was obligated to forward it to the House herself.

It is unfathomable why Mrs Holness displayed such stubbornness in refusing to release the attorney general’s opinions, when she had no such qualms doing so with those by the parliamentary counsel which, with respect to reports by the AuG, supported the Speaker’s insistence on delayed tabling.

Indeed, her explanation for relenting – fulfilling her “duty to provide clarity and and full understanding to the Jamaican people in public affairs” – stands in stark contrast with her actions in the first place. Clarity and transparency should have been of consideration from the beginning.

This obduracy by Mrs Holness raised questions of motive, injured her Speakership, and caused unwarranted damage to the administration that just happens to be led by her husband.

The Speaker’s call for Parliament to remedy what she perceives to be ambiguities in laws covering the management of reports by the AuG could have been made last November, while Parliament, as she ruled, maintained its old convention for handling the documents. Hopefully, Mrs Holness has learnt a valuable lesson from this episode and that her Speakership will be the better for it.

# # #

SPEAKER’S TRIBUTE FELL SHORT

Given a sticky wicket on which he had to perform, Prime Minister Andrew Holness was genuinely warm and gracious in his tribute on Tuesday to Parliament’s retired clerk, Valrie Curtis.

Speaker Juliet Holness’ attempt at grace unfortunately fell short. Mrs Holness owes Ms Curtis an apology, which should have been given unreservedly then and there.

Instead, the Speaker parenthesised and parsed, and seemed distinctly uncomfortable in delivering her remarks – as well she might.

She said: “Our differences in perspective on a particular administrative matter and the resulting procedural communication to her, which was never a part of her HR record, but which has unfortunately been circulated in the public domain, was never intended to detract from her years of service and valuable contribution to the Parliament.

“Therefore, it is important for me to state that I continue to hold the retired clerk in high regard and acknowledge her contribution, and not allow that to be overshadowed for any reason.”

The fact, though, is that on the eve of Ms Curtis’ retirement, the Speaker clearly attempted to throw the clerk under the bus for what, fundamentally, was her own clumsy handling of how reports sent by the auditor general to Parliament should be dealt with. They were not to be tabled for two months unless ministers had commented on them.

Apparently, Mrs Holness wanted any ‘early’ reports to be physically sent back to the AuG. Ms Curtis had previously written to the auditor general about the Speaker’s ruling. However, two reports, by Ms Curtis’ telling, arrived at Parliament while the clerk was on leave.

Whatever it is that Speaker Holness believed that Ms Curtis failed to do, she felt it to be so large and egregious to accuse the clerk of “gross dereliction of duty” and having brought Parliament “into disrepute”.

HUMILIATED

That letter of reprimand was emailed to all 62 other members of parliament. It was soon public. Ms Curtis was understandably humiliated.

As for the Speaker’s statement that the reprimand was not placed on Ms Curtis’ HR (human resources) record, the letter did say it was “to be placed on your personal (personnel) file”.

Ms Curtis was not in Parliament for Tuesday’s tributes, ostensibly because she is, or was, travelling. But it would be understood if she did not want to be there.

If that was indeed the case, the prime minister’s seeming attempt to piggyback on and turn into an all-of-Parliament affair the Opposition’s intended event to honour Ms Curtis in person is a good move, to which the Opposition should accede.

That would be a more fitting tribute to the former clerk and in keeping in the warm, non-partisan person that Prime Minister Holness captured in his remarks on Tuesday.

In the meantime, the Speaker should do the proper thing and publicly and unreservedly apologise to Ms Curtis. She should see it as part of the reset of her Speakership.