The Gleaner of August 07, 2008, reports that Lackston Robinson is back at work at the Attorney General's Chambers. Not surprisingly, the SG has expressed great joy at his return. I understand that Mr. Robinson is now the Director of Litigation in place of Nicole Foster-Pusey, who is now on pre-resignation leave.
The Gleaner's report had a couple of errors which I pointed out in a note to Associate Editor Colin Steer in an email today (August 09, 2008)
Colin,
While it is true that Justice Jones quashed the PSC's decision to retire Lackston Robinson in the public interest, it is not true that
a) Justice Jones ordered Lackston Robinson to be reinstated, or
b) that Justice Jones criticized the PSC for sending Mr. Robinson on leave.
If you read Justice Jones' judgment, you will see that it was the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Justice who sent Mr. Robinson on leave. Indeed the litigation was not only against the PSC but also against the PS. The judge found that the PS' decision was ultra vires, and accordingly, it was quashed by an order of certiorari. Any judicial criticism of the decision to send Mr. Robinson on leave would accordingly been directed only at the PS, and not at the PSC.
There is really no legal basis for assuming that Mr. Robinson has been 'returned', when indeed, the effect of the judgment is that he never left.
If you have not seen the judgment, I would be happy to send it to you.
Hilaire
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Lackston Robinson is back at the AG's Chambers
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Patrick Foster replies to Tom Tavares-Finson
I am belatedly mentioning that Patrick Foster, QC, replied comprehensively to Tom Tavares-Finson's specious claims about the AG's Chambers. Patrick's letter appeared in the Observer of July 13, 2008:
http://jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080712t220000-0500_137806_obs_so_unfair__senator_tavares_finson_.asp
Patrick asserted that in his "capacity as deputy solicitor-general and acting solicitor-general", he had had "detailed discussions with all the attorneys who have recently resigned from the Chambers and none have indicated to me that their resignations were related to the attorney-general's review of the fee arrangements in the Chambers". Unless Tom Tavares-Finson can demonstrate that Patrick is being untruthful, I do believe he owes an apology (at the very least) to the lawyers of the Chambers.
Patrick indicated that the attorneys left for a variety of reasons, but declined to disclose any of them. I think this is a pity, as I do think that the public does deserve to know in clear and unambiguous terms the reasons for this unprecedented exodus from the AG's Chambers.
Patrick made it clear that none of the attorneys had any objection to the AG's review of the fee-charging practice. Similarly, none of the attorneys had any objection to the AG setting or reviewing policy in this area. He clarified that this practice is authorized by the Staff Orders, a minor detail that Tavares-Finson omitted to mention in his assault on the lawyers of the Chambers. It is curious, but not surprising, that the AG herself is yet to speak on the matter, either to defend her staff or to correct Tom Tavares-Finson's wild allegations.
I am still hoping that former staff lawyers at the AG's Chambers will step forward and disclose precisely what has transpired since Dorothy Lightbourne became AG in September 2007. This is not a private matter, and the public interest demands full disclosure, in my view. I suspect that public servants are loathe to expose malfeasance or abuse of authority occurring in their departments. Presumably, this is in keeping with the culture imposed by the Official Secrets Act. For me, remaining silent is the equivalent of protecting those would abuse the authority that has been entrusted to them by the public.
We will see.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
One flew over the AG's nest?
JLP Senator Tom Tavares-Finson is a senior lawyer of many years standing. According to the Daily Observer (July 09, 2008), during last Friday's Senate sitting the goodly senator reportedly claimed the existence of "an obvious correlation between recent departures from the Attorney General's Department and the current review of the practice of employees collecting payments for work done for Government agencies."
Senator Tavares-Finson claimed that "Government lawyers were charging fees equivalent to those charged by lawyers in private practice to do Government work and were being paid with taxpayers' money." According to Tavares-Finson J$40.9 million was collected by "a few enterprising senior lawyers (at the AG's Department)." He emphasized that "this money was shared by a few lawyers and, while I have no intention of calling any names, let me say that there seems to me to be an obvious correlation between the recent departures and the beneficiaries of this largesse".
Tavares-Finson then concluded that:
* the review of the earning capacity of senior Government lawyers, as well as the attorney general's decision to review employment practices in the department were at the root of the tensions within the department.
* Efforts to blame resignations on the management style of the attorney general are groundless.
It seems that Tavares-Finson's flight over the AG's nest has rendered him impervious to logic, evidence, or just plain decency. Certainly, given the silence of the AG so far, it is fair to assume that Tavares-Finson views coincide with her own. Essentially, Tavares-Finson has accused government lawyers of running a fee-charging racket on at taxpayers' expense, and then walking away in a huff when the racket was stopped by the AG.
I am reliably informed that Tavares-Finson made no inquiries of any of the senior lawyers at the AG's Chambers about the fees supposedly collected. If indeed the fee-charging scheme is under review, why not wait until the review has been completed and documented before attacking these lawyers? Again, my information is that lawyers who did private work (for statutory bodies, for example) earned no more than J$30,000 (each) per annum, on average. If Tavares-Finson has evidence of lawyers collecting J$40M, does he not have an obligation to produce the evidence? Where would Tavares-Finson get this 'information' from other than Dorothy Lightbourne? It is curious that the AG has never publicly attributed the exodus of lawyers to internal disputes over the fee issue. by innuendo, Tavares-Finson has accused senior lawyers like Stephen Vasciannie, Patrick Foster, Nicole Lambert, et al of (a) being "beneficiaries" of "largesse" and (b) departing when the largesse was supposedly cut off. This is outrageous. I would challenge Tavares-Finson to repeat his claim outside of parliament, where his word would not be protected by absolute privilege.
How can Tavares-Finson credibly exonerate the AG given the history of her tenure at the AG's Chambers? How does Tavares-Finson explain that no AG in Jamaica's history has suffered an exodus of almost 1/3 of their Chambers in under a year? Does he seriously believe that Patrick Foster opted to leave before his contract was up, because he was being deprived of an extra $30,000 per annum? Is Tavares-Finson aware that some lawyers resigned before they had identified an alternative? Is he also aware that the AG pointedly accused some lawyers of being PNP sympathizers? Why does he ignore the fact that the AG contrived to derail Stephen Vasciannie's nomination as SG? What about the withdrawal of Nicole Foster-Pusey's acting appointment? How about the AG's interference in litigation being conducted under the supervision of the then acting Solicitor General? If the AG's management style is so stellar, why hasn't the AG's Chambers so far not succeeded in replacing the lawyers who have departed? Why, for example, is there no replacement yet for Stephen Vasciannie, as head of the international division? Why are there currently no Deputies-Solicitor General? I could go on and on.
Lawyers of the AG's Chambers, past and present, need to stand up and firmly rebuff this scandalous assault on their reputations. Nothing less will suffice.
Monday, July 7, 2008
The Attorney General's galaxy of delusion
In the Attorney General's galaxy, the exodus of staff from her Chambers has nothing to with her, and furthermore is "not unusual". According to an RJR story today (July 07, 2008):
Minister of Justice, Senator Dorothy Lightbourne is maintaining that the recent exodus of employees from the Attorney General Department is not unusual.
She laid blame at the feet of the media for what she says is its continuous reference to problems between herself and her employees.
Senator Lightbourne says there is no truth to the rumours.
"All government have resignations. Persons leave law school, they go into the government service, they gain experience for two or three years and then they go," said the Minister.
"I don't see anything unusual, I don't see why it is being made unusual in this one because if you look at the DPP and all government departments people leave and move on for better conditions of service,"
"I don't interfere, there is a Solicitor General and I work through him. He consults me, he advises me and my own intervention is policy,"
Ten attorneys have resigned from the Attorney General's Department since January, the latest being Director for State proceedings, Nicole Foster Pusey.
I wonder if the learned Attorney General could point to any similar exodus that has occurred under any of her predecessors? While it is true that lawyers often move on after a few years, none of her precedessors have suffered the loss of almost a dozen members of staff in less than a year. In my world, that is unprecedented. How does the Attorney General explain the departure of Patrick Foster, for example? Most of his 26 years as a lawyer were spent in the government service, and in particular, the Attorney General's Department. Patrick left the AG's Department in the early 90s and returned in the early 2000s. Patrick was hardly someone who was simply passing through the Department to gain experience. He was a skilled, committed lawyer who came second to Stephen Vasciannie in the initial SG recruitment exercise. It is no secret that the AG bullied (or attempted to bully) Patrick and others while Patrick was acting as Solicitor General. It is also no secret that the AG accused staff members of being aligned with the PNP when she first assumed office as AG. The AG undoubtedly interfered directly with ongoing litigation, for example, the electoral litigation between Dabdoub and Vaz. Who does the AG think she is fooling?
For the AG to now claim that she doesn't interfere is frankly, a bald-faced lie. Perhaps in her galaxy, undermining the selection of a Solicitor General doesn't count as interference, but in my world it does. The AG was plain about wanting Douglas Leys as SG and nobody else. When the PSC 'failed' to play ball with the AG, they were fired and a pseudo-PSC established that oould do nothing more than rubber stamp Douglas Leys as the new SG. Indeed, the AG engineered things so well, that Douglas ended up being the only applicant.
If the AG stepped out of her galaxy of delusion for a nanosecond, I think she would see her tenure at the AG's Chambers for what it is: an unmitigated disaster.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
More on departures from the AG's Department
The Daily Observer of June 18, 2008 and the Sunday Herald of June 22 have both highlighted the resignation of Nicole Foster-Pusey within the context of the spate of resignations from the AG's Department since the AG took office.
In the Observer's story entitled 'Stop the Wild Allegations', the AG laughably denies that any of the resignations have anything to do with her. According to the AG:
"I don't know anything about resignations, speak to the Solicitor General. I don't know anything about tension, I wish the media would stop with these wild allegations and go to source,"; and
"Persons who resigned spoke with him (Solicitor General) and gave their reasons for leaving. I'm seeing names I don't even know. I've never met the people,"
Who does the AG think she is kidding? So how does she explain almost a dozen lawyers leaving the AG's Chambers since her arrival? I also gather that significant numbers of support personnel have also left in the wake of Hurricane Dorothy. How can AG credibly claim not to know about the resignations or the tension (to put it mildly) that has existed between her and the staff? How does she explain the resignation of Patrick Foster before his contract ended? How does she explain the timing of his resignation? Patrick resigned right after his recommendation of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Solicitor General was overruled. Is Hurricane Dorothy pretending that she has never assailed the members of AG Department as supporters/sympathizers of the PNP or that doing so is likely to create 'tension'??? What about her throwing some members of her staff under the bus? She was quite happy to call Stephen Vasciannie's name in the Senate when he was completely unable to defend himself regarding the letter of advice on the Trafigura matter. What about Nicole Foster-Pusey and the Dabdoub litigation? Let's talk about wild allegations for a moment. Was it not the AG herself who early in her term openly accused staff lawyers of being PNP supporters/sympathizers?
I know as a fact that the AG has been in meetings with some of those who have now resigned or left. How can she feign ignorance of not knowing these members of staff? Is she claiming, for example, that she doesn't know Nicole Lambert, who recently left a senior position in the Chambers? Apart from being untruthful, the AG seems to think it a point of pride to not know who her staff lawyers are. What a great pretence from one who publicly arrogated the right to intervene in personnel matters that are usually left to the Solicitor General.
In the same Observer report, the new Solicitor General has apparently become the AG's spinmeister. He declined to say how many persons had resigned since the AG took office, but "expressed a difficulty in understanding why she was being held liable for the spate of resignations". Is Douglas for real?? According to Douglas, "The Attorney General has nothing to do with it, why are they calling her? She is the political head!" The SG also denied that the resignations had anything to do with the behaviour of his new boss. In this regard, this is what the AG's new spinmeister had to say:
"Let me put an end to that; I took office in May and I had a meeting with the attorney general and we have agreed for a formula going forward which means the office would operate in much the same way it did when Dr Ken Rattray was Solicitor General. [This means] the attorney general would be responsible for policy and advising government and the technical legal office would advise her on the technical legal implications of whatever policy the government is pursuing.
That's the formula we had, that's the formula I intend to abide by and that's the formula which the attorney general has agreed to,"
Now let's see, Douglas. If the AG had already been observing the division of labour between her office and that of the SG, why was it necessary for you to meet and agree on a 'formula' for going forward?? Is it not implicit in your own words that the AG was not following this formula before, and hence the need to re-establish it? If the AG had been religiously following this formula throughout her reign, do you, Douglas, believe that you would've been appointed SG? Had this formula been applied, do you believe that the AG would've had the audacity to derail the appointment of Stephen Vasciannie and procure the dismissal of the PSC? If the AG had behaved like all her predecessors, do you seriously believe that a dozen people or more would've left the Chambers in under a year? Do you believe that Patrick Foster would've resigned a mere months before his contract was scheduled to end, if the AG had always behaved in accordance with this formula? Why would Patrick give up a gratuity if things were so hunky-dory in the Chambers? Who do you think was responsible for rescinding the appointment of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Deputy Solicitor General? Patrick? Give me a break, Douglas, neither you nor the AG have a monopoly on intelligence, so stop playing us all as fools.
Douglas Leys also claims that none of the resignees has cited difficulties with Hurricane Dorothy as a reason for leaving. Now let's examine this. If anybody had in fact mentioned this as a reason to Douglas, would he be disclosing this to the press? I think not. In any event, as Douglas well knows, people often don't cite the real reasons for leaving a job. Further, does anybody really need to cite Hurricane Dorothy as a reason when it's so obvious??? Let's get real. We are talking about an AG who, unlike her predecessors, has publicly asserted the right and the authority to interfere with personnel decisions, and indeed operational decisions that are usually within the purview of the SG.
In its front page article of Sunday Herald of June 22, 2008 entitled Government Backtracks, there is the incredible story of Nicole Foster-Pusey being compelled to recant an undertaking not to seek costs against Abe Dabdoub, following his election litigation against Daryl Vaz. I can't help but reproduce the relevant portions below:
There are more indications that political interference could have triggered last week’s sudden resignation of director of litigation at the Attorney General’s Department, Nicole Foster-Pusey.
Based on documentary evidence, Foster-Pusey was recently directed to rescind a commitment she gave to attorneys who represented Abe Dabdoub in the dual citizen trial, that the AG’s Department would not pursue legal costs against their client as ordered by Chief Justice Zeila McCalla.
The Sunday Herald obtained documents indicating that Foster-Pusey received instructions from her immediate boss, Solicitor General, Douglas Leys, to rescind the commitment.
In a letter dated May 21, 2008, Foster-Pusey had informed Gayle Nelson & Company, attorneys for Dabdoub, that the AG’s Department would not be “pursuing the award of costs outlined in the judgement”.
However, two weeks later, in a letter to the said law firm, dated June 5, Foster-Pusey said: “I am advised that at the time I made these arrangements, I had no instructions from the Solicitor General and the Attorney General.
“The Solicitor General is awaiting instructions from the Attorney General as to how the government would proceed on this issue.” That gave a clear indication that the changed position had emanated from the Attorney General or higher up the political ladder.
On June 12, Gayle Nelson & Company responded, describing Foster-Pusey’s latter correspondence as “astounding”.
“We are therefore entitled, obliged and compelled to rely on any undertaking or assurance given by you in a matter over which you have conduct, and our client intends to so rely, not only on your statements made before the Chief Justice, but also your letter of 21st May,” the law firm stated.
The letter continued: ”We take this opportunity to point out to you that any withdrawal of your position is to be considered a serious breach of ethics, contrary to the cannons of the profession, and which may very well result in a report to the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council by our client.”
Foster-Pusey replied on June 16, stating that: “ I can offer no further clarification, but anticipate that as indicated in the June 5 letter, instructions will be issued by the Solicitor General in due course.”
The former director of litigation made it clear that she acted within her powers.
“I wish to make it clear that at the time I stated my position on the issue of costs, it was my understanding that in my capacity…I had the full power and authority to do so without the need of instructions from either the Solicitor General or the Attorney General.”
Over the years, Foster-Pusey added, “I have made many such directions in my capacity as the attorney with conduct of a matter, team leader in the Chambers,...since 2002 and various periods thereafter.”
So, in summary, Nicole Foster-Pusey has been thrown under the bus but both the AG and the SG, for doing nothing more than her job. As director of litigation, why on earth should she require express instructions not to pursue costs? The Dabdoub v Vaz case was not one in which the government was direct/named party. The government appeared as a friend of the court, as I understand it. This makes it even more bizarre that the AG/SG would now expose Mrs. Foster-Pusey to a disciplinary proceedings before the General Legal Council? It's unconscionable. Under such circumstances, what could Nicole Foster-Pusey do other than to resign?
The spectre of the Vasciannie/PSC imbroglio continues to haunt the AG's Department, however the AG and the SG want to pretend that all is well. The main problem is that the public, and indeed the legal profession simply doesn't care enough about what is happening in the Chambers to speak out and demand better from those who claim to serve the public interest.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Nicole Foster-Pusey resigns from A-G's Department
Not surprisingly, Nicole Foster-Pusey is leaving the AG's Department. RJR reported the news today (June 17, 2008). She joins more than half a dozen lawyers who have resigned from the AG's Chambers since Dorothy Lightbourne's arrival as AG in September 2007. In any self-respecting country, this spate of resignations would be a scandal. But clearly not in Jamaica, where there has been little or no outrage at a government intent on eviscerating the AG's Chambers for no motive other than petty personality/partisan politics.
I do hope that some of the lawyers will publicly disclose their reasons for leaving. In the RJR report, Nicole Foster-Pusey declined to comment on the reasons for her departure or the departure of any of her colleagues. This might be 'politically correct' while she is still in the Chambers. However, I do think the public interest demands that the departing lawyers disclose exactly what is going on in the AG's Chambers, and not simply run away.
There had been some idle chatter some months ago about an inquiry by the Office of the PM/Cabinet Office into the operations of the AG's Department. Not surprisingly, there have been no further developments on this. To be candid, I can't see the point of having an inquiry, given the obvious cause of the turmoil at the AG's Department. I can't see how the new Solicitor General, Douglas Leys can operate with any measure of efficiency, given the exodus of so many lawyers, particularly those at the middle and senior levels.
I was speaking today with one of my Jamaican lawyer friends who now resides in Europe. He related to me how a very senior lawyer in Jamaica was bemoaning the state of affairs at the AG's Department. I reminded him that this lawyer was one of the many in Jamaica who failed to speak out when Stephen Vasciannie was strong-armed out of the SG post. I now recall that I had personally emailed this particularly senior lawyer to raise her voice in protest. I never had so much as an acknowledgement.
Despite the chaos at the AG's Department, the Jamaican Bar Association and the Advocates Association of Jamaica remain mute. I suppose this should hardly be surprising, given their track record so far. I continue to be concerned about the complete lack of engagement by the Jamaica Civil Service Asssociation. Except for a few peeps out of Wayne Jones in the initial stages of the Vasciannie imbroglio, the JCSA has been conspicuously silent. It's times like this that I wonder, why should I care, if others don't?
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Sunday Herald reports on more departures from the AG's Chambers
According to the Sunday Herald of June 15, 2008, four more lawyers are exiting the AG's Chambers by the end of the year. See http://www.sunheraldja.com/article/show/1050. According to the Sunday Herald:
There has been a change for the worse at the Attorney General’s Department, as four more attorneys have resigned, with three more scheduled to leave by yearend, furthering the exodus from the department.
Three of the four have already left, as the haemorrhaging continues, ostensibly on the basis that recent actions of Justice Minister and Attorney General, Senator Dorothy Lightbourne, have threatened the department’s much prized independence and insulation from political manipulation.
The three to have left are Assistant Attorney General, Julie Thompson-James and Crown Counsels Stacy-Ann Bennett and Kalaycia Clarke, while the fourth, Crown Counsel Jerome Spence, is leaving at the end of July.
I hope that the AG and the PM are proud. Enough said.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Sunday Herald redeems itself (sort of)
In its editorial today (April 06, 2008), the Sunday Herald partially redeemed itself by challenging Ambassador Rainford's earlier denial that the PSC approved or rescinded the acting appointments of Nicole Foster-Pusey and Lackston Robinson. However, the Herald's editorial failed to take any responsibility for having previously accepted Amb. Rainford's version of events without question. The Sunday Herald actually went beyond a mere disclaimer, and apologized to Amb. Rainford for carrying the story about the cancellation of the acting appointments.
The editorial states that:
There is a widely held view that the current PSC, described by some as Prime Minister Golding’s Select Committee, has lost its independence. And recent developments in the commission and how they were handled have not done much to dispel that view.
The new PSC was conceived and delivered as an appendage of the political directorate. Congenitally, independence was never part of its institutional DNA. To suggest that the new PSC has "lost its independence", presupposes that it was independent ab initio, which is palpably not the case. The lack of independence is implicitly acknowledged in an earlier passage of the editorial which recounts the circumstances in which the new PSC was born.
In its lead story, Commission blunders, the Sunday Herald reports not only on the controversial cancellation of the acting appointments, but on the failure of the new PSC to short-list Hugh Wildman as a candidate for Director of Public Prosecutions. Hugh Wildman has publicly complained that he was not interviewed for the job. In this respect, the Sunday Herald sought answers from Amb. Rainford to the following questions:
• Were all the applicants interviewed? If not, what criteria were used in selecting the short list?
• Did all the applicants satisfy all the requirements in the advertisement? If not, why was there any exception?
• Did the PSC consider applications from Messrs Terrence Williams and Hugh Wildman? If not, was the PSC aware that the above-named submitted pplications? If yes, what factors informed the decision not to invite them for interviews?
• Were any persons with legal training (former members of the judiciary/attorneys) involved in the interviews? If no, what were the considerations for their exclusion?
• Could the PSC specify the nature of the test given to the interviewees prior to the interviews? Did the test involve legal questions? Did the test involve personnel issues or questions related to management?
• What, if any, were the legal issues pertaining to the office of DPP which were involved in the test?
However, according to the Sunday Herald, "Ambassador Rainford declined comment, saying under the Official Secrets Act, he was prohibited to comment on the matter."
This is beyond ridiculous, that in the 21st century, a public authority is invoking an antiquated Official Secrets Act to avoid accountability for its decisions. Has it not occurred to the new PSC that they would be obliged to disclose the reasons for excluding Hugh Wildman if the latter opted to challenge the PSC in a judicial review court? While I hold no brief for Hugh (he was my classmate in Law School), I cannot see any reasonable justification for not short-listing him. Unlike the other candidates, Hugh has had experience as a Director of Public Prosecutions in Grenada. Similarly, I am mystified by the exclusion of Terrence Williams from the short list of interviewees. Terrence is currently the DPP of the British Virgin Islands. The new PSC needs to explain how it could short-list relatively lawyers like Lisa Palmer and Marlene Malahoo-Forte, who have experience leading a prosecution department, but exclude Hugh and Terrence, who do. To be frank, neither Hugh nor Terrence would be my choice for DPP. However, they unquestionably had a legitimate expectation, if not a right, to be fairly considered for the job.
The news article also touched on the cancellation of the acting appointment of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Deputy Solicitor General. According to the Sunday Herald:
Ambassador Rainford said the appointment and later rescinding of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Solicitor General in February, without the knowledge of the commission was “puzzling and inexplicable”.
Continuing, Rainford said he found it “highly unusual” for the chief personnel officer, Jacqueline Hickson, to act on such a sensitive issue without consulting the commission.
According to the article, "The Sunday Herald tried unsuccessfully to ascertain if it was customary for appointments of this nature to be made without consultation with the chairman, or if the chief personnel officer was empowered to approve the appointments."
Ambassador Rainford is either woefully ignorant of standard civil service practice or is being blatantly disingenuous. There is nothing unusual about the Chief Personnel Officer acting in the name of the PSC with respect to acting appointments, as I have stated in previous posts. Now, I presume that the CPO will simply refer every minute decision to the PSC for its micro-management purview. I have no doubt that the CPO acted in good faith, based on delegated authority. There is hardly a doubt in my mind that PSC 'ketch it fraid' when the AG threw a tantrum over the acting appointments, and that it was the AG's objection to the appointments that determined the final outcome.
I hope that the Sunday Herald continues to pursue the story without allowing its investigation to be framed by any considerations other than the public interest. It would be great if the rest of the Jamaican media would follow suit, but I won't hold my breath, since they seem to prefer an orthodoxy of inertia and indifference.
Monday, March 31, 2008
The other Jamaican newspapers follow suit
I gather that the Daily Gleaner and the Sunday Herald have followed the Jamaica Observer in distancing itself from James W. Smith's letter regarding the cancellation of the acting appointments of Nicole Pusey-Foster and Lackston Robinson. I cannot believe that every major paper in Jamaica opted to accept the word of Amb. Donald Rainford without question or investigation. The abject cowardice of the media apparently knows no bounds.
In fairness to the Observer, I have heard from one of the editors who has taken the point that the Observer should not have issued a disclaimer in light of the clear evidence available that demonstrates approval for the acting appointments was given and then withdrawn.
Some have suggested that the Amb. Rainford should be taken as saying that the acting appointments were made by the Chief Personnel Officer without the express authorization of the new PSC. However, in the disclaimer by the Observer (which I assume was replicated by the other newspapers), it is clear that Amb. Rainford's position is that no recommendations for the acting appointments were ever made, much less approved or disapproved. This simply does not square with the evidence. When I appeared on Nationwide News Network last week, Emily and Naomi were trying to push the idea of the CPO going on a frolic of her own, as if to imply that she requires express authorization for every personnel decision she makes in the name of the PSC.
Given the posturing of the Attorney General, and her clear intent to micro-manage personnel decisions in the AG's Chambers, I am all the more astonished by the media's handling of this issue. It's a damn disgrace.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
The Observer drops the ball on the Foster-Pusey/Robinson acting appointments
In today's Observer, March 29, 2008, there is a disclaimer that reads as follows:
THE Observer wishes to advise our readers that in a letter to the editor published in our March 26, 2008 edition the author, James W Smith, stated that:
“The most recent of these developments has been the rescinding of the promotion of a senior staff member by the Public Service Commission only days after the same PSC had approved the recommendation. The public has also learnt of the resignation of the acting solicitor general with over a year on his contract, and the non-renewal of the contract of the deputy solicitor-general, Professor Stephen Vasciannie.
It is of grave concern that the newly appointed PSC could approve a recommendation from the acting solicitor-general for the promotion of a senior staff member and then days later rescind the same appointment.
The PSC owes an explanation as to the “extenuating” circumstances that arose in those days that caused such a reversal. I hope that the new PSC, comprising individuals with the highest levels of integrity, did not bow to political pressure on this issue. Could this be the reason for the acting solicitor-general’s resignation? And what of the future of that staff member who must be highly embarrassed by the course of these events?”
The chairman of the PSC, Donald Rainford, categorically denies this accusation and accordingly advises that no such recommendation was sent to the PSC, no such appointment was made by the PSC and consequently no such appointment was rescinded by the PSC.
Except for the views expressed in the Editorial column, the articles published in our editorial section do not necessarily represent the views of the Jamaica Observer.
The disclaimer can be found at: http://activepaper.olivesoftware.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=Sk1PLzIwMDgvMDMvMjkjQXIwMDQwMw==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom
In issuing this disclaimer, the Observer appears to have simply took the PSC Chairman at his word, without any journalistic inquiry of the relevant players, namely, the acting Solicitor General and the Chief Personnel Officer. Had the Observer probed more deeply, or at all, it would have discovered two letters written by the CPO. I have posted these letters under the heading "Useful links". You can otherwise access them at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2402712/-letter-of-Chief-Personnel-Officer-approving-acting-appointments-270208
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2402711/-letter-of-Chief-Personnel-Officer-cancelling-appointments-030308
These letters plainly evidence the approval of the acting appointments of Nicole Foster-Pusey and Lackston Robinson (on February 27) and the later cancellation of the appointments less than a week later on March 3, 2008.
I am quite ashamed of the Observer for so abjectly accepting the PSC Chairman's denial without any further inquiry. It is all the more egregious, given that the correspondence between the acting Solicitor General and the CPO was openly discussed by Emily Crooks and Naomi Francis on their programme on NNN earlier this week. There really is no excuse for this shoddy and quite spineless journalism.
James W. Smith, the letter writer, has protested to the Observer, and I have supported him in this regard. I reproduce the relevant emails for your information:
James Smith's email of March 29, 2008
----- Original Message ----
From: James W. Smith
To: Vernon Davidson
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 2:01:16 PM
Subject: Ja Observer: Correction & Disclaimer - PSC & Atty General's Dept
Dear Editor
I note with interest on Page 4 of the Daily Observer of Saturday, March 29, 2008 that you issued a disclaimer and apology with respect to a letter I sent you on issues at the Attorney General's Dept.
The disclaimer raises more questions than answers and I urge you to continue to pursue the matter.
Facts
1) The Chief Personnel Officer or Scty to the Public Services Commission (someone who has acted in this position for many years) wrote a letter under her signature to the acting Solicitor General Patrick Foster approving the recommendation for the appointment of Nicole Foster-Pusey.
Subsequent, the same person wrote another letter in which she stated that "she was directed" to inform that the recommendation was rescinded.
This letters can be obtained under the Access to Information Act.
Questions
1) On whose authority/instructions would the Scty to the PSC approve such a recommendation? Are we to understand that she acted on her own, without consultation with the chairman or any of the members of the PSC?
Is it standard procedure for the Scty to the PSC to do this without consultation as the chairman of the PSC is suggesting?
2) Is it merely coincidental that the same day the initial letter approving the recommendation of Mrs. Foster-Pusey was sent to the acting SG, that the Attorney General, Dorothy Lightbourne would call Patrick Foster - the acting SG and "cuss" him off for making that recommendation without her consultation or input?
Did the chairman of the PSC not know of this?
3) If as we are being made to believe, that the Scty to the PSC acted on her own, why then would she issue a letter of revocation of an appointment indicating that she was "directed to". Directed to by whom? Since the AG can't or better still shouldn't direct the Scty of the PSC, then who did.
4) Is it of any interest to the public that the acting SG Patrick Foster has resigned? Does anyone care why he has resigned?
I am afraid that a game is being played out here, where the Scty of the PSC is being made out to have acted on her own on this issue and will be used as a scapegoat to cover up the most blatant political interference that this country has ever seen by an Attorney General.
If anybody listened to Nationwide Radio over the last week on this issue, the "wicket is being prepared and rolled" for such an outcome.
These matters are of public interest and must be pursued.
I don't expect this letter to be published but I expect the Observer as an independent newspaper to pursue the truth on this issue.
Of note and interest, my letter was sent to all three newspapers (Gleaner, Observer and Herald) published by all three and the Observer is the only one that has issued a retraction and disclaimer.
Regards,
James
My email of support of March 29, 2008 (addressed to Vernon Davidson and Desmond Allen of the Observer)
Desmond & Vernon,
I must support James Smith on this issue. I take strong exception to your correction/disclaimer. Undoubtedly, there are serious questions to be asked about this issue. Given this, I am astonished that the Observer chose instead to issue a disclaimer, based solely on a denial by Amb. Rainford. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but Nationwide News Network 'published' the correspondence between the Chief Personnel Officer and the acting Solicitor General on this issue. For reference, here's my blog commentary on the issue: http://vasciannie-psc.blogspot.com/2008/03/nnn-this-morning-programme-and-ags.html. Essentially, if one is to follow your disclaimer, there was never any recommendation by the acting SG, and therefore nothing to be approved or rescinded. This cannot fly based on the facts that are already known and in the public. Any responsible newspaper has an obligation to do more than simply accept uncritically the assertions of the PSC chair.
If we cannot rely on the media to probe the questions raised by James Smith, we are in more serious trouble as a nation than I thought.
Best,
Hilaire
Friday, March 21, 2008
More departures from the AG's Chambers?
Stephen Vasciannie's last day in the AG's Chambers was March 18, 2008. Patrick Foster, as has already been announced, will leave at the end of June 2008. I have now been reliably informed that Nicole Lambert, another senior member of the Chambers is expected to leave in April 2008. At least two or three more resignations are rumoured to be forthcoming.
The AG's partisan campaign of 'shock and awe' is clearly resulting in a 'surge' of resignations and departures, to the detriment of the people of Jamaica. It is no secret that the AG considered that the Chambers had been 'infected' by so-called "PNP" lawyers, and thus, the shock and awe campaign to purge them. Dorothy Lightbourne has diplayed a virulent partisanship that I never suspected was in her. I have known her for many years, and never saw this side to her. Dorothy is fundamentally a weak and insecure lawyer who has no respect for the institutional history of the AG's Chambers, nor for the professionals who staff it. She seems particularly threatened by those who are palpably more competent than she is. So she resorts to tearing them down. She has contrived to have a Public Service Commission that will rubber stamp her whims. Loyalty is her bottom line, not competence. What a tragedy for the the Chambers. What a tragedy for Jamaica.
