A message has been circulated alleging that my actions threatened a woman’s livelihood and calling my integrity into question. That allegation is serious, but it does not accurately reflect what occurred.
I have spent many years in public service, guided by principles of fairness, responsibility and respect. I would never knowingly threaten a woman or anyone with the loss of their livelihood.
The factual position is straightforward. Information was brought to my attention concerning the rules governing the political activities of civil servants. I reviewed the Government’s own rules and guidance and, based on that information, raised a question about whether a civil servant’s role as a political party branch chairperson was consistent with the Government’s political-impartiality requirements.
I did not seek anyone’s dismissal, nor did I threaten anyone’s employment. I advised the Chairperson that, in light of the information available to me, I believed it would be in the best interests of herself and the Branch for her to step aside as Chairperson. I also made clear that I intended to seek clarification from the appropriate authority.
Those who know me, and those who have worked alongside me throughout my many years of public service, know the principles by which I have tried to live my life.
If anyone genuinely believes that I threatened them, then I believe they should state clearly what was said, when it was said and in what context. The public deserves facts, not characterisations.
I am also disappointed that, having reached out directly to the Leader of the Party, Premier David Burt, regarding this matter, I have received no response. When such a serious allegation is being made publicly against one of his Parliamentary colleagues, I had hoped there would at least be an opportunity for the facts to be heard.
For the benefit of the public, let me explain what actually occurred.
Information was brought to my attention concerning the rules governing the political activities of civil servants. This caused me to examine the Government’s own rules and guidance.
Section 7.0.7 of the Conditions of Employment and Code of Conduct for the Public Service deals specifically with political impartiality. It states that Public Officers have a duty to uphold the political impartiality of the Public Service and must not engage in partisan political activities that may be seen to interfere with that duty.
In addition, the Bermuda Government’s published guidance on Public Service Political Impartiality explains that the Election Guidance Notes for Public Officers prohibit officers from engaging in activities that could call their political impartiality into question, including holding office in a political party.
Importantly, the Government goes further and specifically explains that holding office in a political party includes having a formal role within the party’s organisational structure, such as being an executive member, secretary, treasurer or chairman.
That is the information that was brought to my attention.
I had not previously understood the restriction to apply in this manner. My understanding over the years had been that the strongest restrictions applied principally to Permanent Secretaries, Directors, Heads of Departments and other senior officers.
Once the matter was brought to my attention, however, I believed I had a responsibility as the Member of Parliament for the constituency to raise it with my Branch Chairperson, who is also a civil servant.
I advised her that, in light of this information, I believed it would be in the best interests of herself and the Branch for her to step aside as Chairperson.
This was not punishment.
It was not intimidation.
And it certainly was not a threat against her livelihood.
I was not seeking to have anyone dismissed from their employment. I was raising a question about whether simultaneously holding a position as a civil servant and serving as Chairman of a political party branch was consistent with the Government’s own political-impartiality requirements.
I also informed the Chairperson that I intended to seek clarification from the Head of the Public Service. However, before doing so, I indicated that I would first speak with the Premier.
There is an important distinction between threatening someone’s employment and bringing a potential conflict with employment rules to their attention.
If someone tells me that a rule may be being breached, I believe the responsible course is not to ignore it. The responsible course is to ask the appropriate authority for clarification.
And if the Head of the Public Service determines that my interpretation is incorrect or that an exception applies in these particular circumstances, I will accept that determination.
That is what fairness requires.
Throughout my public life, I have tried to live according to a very simple principle:
It is not about who is right. It is about what is right.
Sometimes doing what is right requires us to ask uncomfortable questions. Sometimes it requires us to challenge our own understanding. And sometimes it requires us to seek an independent answer from the proper authority.
But asking whether a rule is being followed should never automatically be transformed into an allegation that someone’s livelihood has been threatened.
My integrity matters to me.
So does the dignity, reputation and livelihood of every individual involved in this matter.
I will therefore continue to deal with this calmly, respectfully and through the appropriate channels. I will not answer accusation with accusation, nor anger with anger.
Truth does not need shouting. It needs facts.
I am prepared for all of the facts to be placed on the table and then I am prepared to let the people judge for themselves.
Any content which is considered unsuitable, unlawful, or offensive, includes personal details, advertises or promotes products, services or websites, or repeats previous comments will be removed.
User comments posted on this website are solely the views and opinions of the comment writer and are not a representation of or reflection of the opinions of TNN or its staff.
TNN reserves the right to remove, edit or censor any comments.
TNN accepts no liability and will not be held accountable for the comments made by users.