Dear Chairman Williams:
Re: Mrs. Deborah Charles’ Appointment as Clerk of the House of Assembly
I write concerning the appointment by the Public Service Commission (PSC) of Mrs. Deborah Charles to the position of Clerk of the House of Assembly. The appointment raises serious concerns among the Members of the Opposition regarding the impartiality, professionalism and Constitutional integrity of the Office of the Clerk of the House. That must be addressed because the Clerk is vital to the proper functioning of the House of Assembly.
Office of Clerk of the House – Constitutional Role and Functions
The Constitution provides in section 35 that there shall be a Clerk of the House of Assembly and that the office of the Clerk of the House and the offices of the members of his/her staff shall be public offices.
The Standing Order 9 of the House of Assembly outlines the administrative duties of the Clerk. To perform those duties appropriately, the holder of this office must not only be impartial but must also appear to be so.
The role of the Clerk of the House of Assembly may be juxtaposed with that of the Speaker to place the significance of the non-partisan character of the Clerk’s office into proper constitutional perspective. By section 30 of the Constitution, the Speaker may be elected either from among the members of the House who are not members of the Cabinet or Parliamentary Secretaries or from among persons who are not members of the House. In the case of a person in the latter category, he/she shall not be appointed to and shall vacate the office if any circumstances arise that would cause him to be disqualified to be elected or appointed as a Representative or by virtue of subsection (1) of section 26 of the Constitution, which includes holding or acting in any public office. Consequently, while on the one hand the Constitution accommodates a partisan political activist functioning in the role of Speaker, on the other hand, it disapproves of such an operative functioning in the Public Office as Clerk of the House and also of a Public Officer performing the role as Speaker.
Clerk of the House – Role in Motions of No Confidence
This requirement for political impartiality is particularly critical to the constitutional role which is bestowed on the Clerk of the House under section 47(2) of the Constitution where, if notice of a motion of no confidence in the Government signed by at least three Representatives is given to the Speaker, and the Speaker fails to ensure that the House meets within twenty-one days of the notice and dispose of the motion, the Clerk of the House is mandated to summon a special meeting of the House at such time and place as he/she may specify for the purpose of debating and disposing of the motion. Recent experience has instructed lamentably, the degree to which the equitable application of this function is essential to securing the integrity of our system of Parliamentary democracy.
The Appointment is of a Partisan Political Activist
The appointment of Mrs. Charles as Clerk of the House does not satisfy the appearance of impartiality and constitutional propriety. That is because Mrs. Deborah Charles is unequivocally a political activist within the leadership of the Unity Labour Party (ULP) which is the governing party. The ULP’s record of manipulating the processes of the House of Assembly over the years it has held a majority of seats there, is widely regarded with justification, as being cavalier at best and downright abusive at worst. Mrs. Charles contested as a candidate of the ULP and lost the West Kingstown seat to the Opposition NDP sitting member Hon. Daniel Cummings in the 2020 general elections, a mere two and half years ago and she remains the ULP’s caretaker and potential candidate for West Kingstown. Furthermore, she was more recently functioning in the House as a Government Senator and, as such, a partisan member of the House of Assembly, until the dissolution of Parliament leading up to the 2020 general elections. Accordingly, her appointment as Clerk of the House has the potential of undermining our democratic institutions and as such weakening our democracy processes.
It is too recent for Mrs. Charles, having been replaced as a Senator by the ULP, to now don the robe of Clerk of the House without raising serious doubts among reasonable people about her ability to perform in that role professionally and impartially, devoid of partisan political bias. More specifically, it is simply not reasonable to expect members of the House and especially of the Opposition to disregard Mrs. Charles’ recent roles and continued political activism in the ULP and now perceive her as a newly-minted impartial holder of this Public Office.
The House of Assembly’s website touts that the office of Clerk is: ”…expected to assist in the interpretation of the Rules of the House, to see new members are properly inducted into the practices and procedures of the House…” and further states that “Members ‘learning the ropes’ in Parliament is the responsibility of the Clerk to a large measure.”
During my many years as a Member of the House of Assembly, I habitually sought assistance and advice from the incumbent Clerk of the House, on administrative and operational matters related to the effective conduct of the business of the House. I never had reason to doubt that the office would function impartially and professionally. I was always confident of receiving a professional response to requests for assistance. Hence, I did not hesitate to make such requests when needed and always trusted the propriety of the responses given by the office and staff.
The appointment of Mrs. Charles as Clerk of the House casts a penumbra of political partisanship over that traditionally impartial Public Office. Undoubtedly, the installation of a prominent ULP political activist in this vital administrative aspect of the legislature. Inserting an politician who failed to gain the support of the electorate in recent elections, motivated by the partisan political agenda of the governing party, will have a detrimental impact on how the Parliament functions and will place the Opposition at an even greater disadvantage, in fulfilling its constitutional duties via the House of Assembly.
Given the constitutional arrangements discussed above, placing a notorious political activist in the role of Clerk of the House, by merely reclassifying that operative as a public officer, smacks of crude cynicism about the democratic underpinnings of our Constitution. Sadly, there are indeed some crass individuals who may promote sacrificing them on the altar of political convenience, professing that they are purely aspirational and nothing more.
An appeal for Equity on behalf of Career Civil Servants
Whatever may have been the motive of the instigators for her nomination and appointment via this political machination, I do not believe that such an undesirable state of affairs was intended by the PSC when you made the appointment. I choose to believe that those factors were inadvertently not given consideration or weighed in the process of making the appointment.
Such a political maneuver as is represented by this appointment, must be disheartening to those career civil servants, who would undoubtedly have aspired to be considered for promotion to the position of Clerk of the House of Assembly. To experience such a career opportunity being denied them and their reasonable expectations for career growth suddenly dashed, by the appointment of a political operative of the governing ULP to this office, can only serve to frustrate and impair the motivation of well qualified civil servants. Especially when there are a variety of other non-public service roles available to reward politicians who may be considered loyal to the governing party.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Members of the Opposition apprehend that by this appointment, the Office of Clerk will not remain impartial and that it will not function in the professional manner required by the Constitution and established over many years of practice.
Furthermore, it is not reasonable to expect members of the Opposition, including Hon. Daniel Cummings who campaigned against and defeated Mrs. Charles in the most recent general elections, to now regard her as a non-partisan professional because she holds the label “Clerk of the House”. We can agree that, if for those reasons, any Member of the House is unable or reluctant to approach the Clerk for assistance or advice, that member would be severely hampered in the performance of his or her duties.
If, as it should be, the effective functioning of the Office of Clerk of the House of Assembly is an essential criterion in the appointment of a person as the Clerk, it would be more helpful and appropriate to recruit a suitably qualified career Civil Servant to assume the functions of that Public Office.
Indeed, on the House of Assembly’s website it is also represented that:
“…the Clerk is a Civil Servant and heads the Departments whose general day-to-day-functions are similar in nature to those of other departments of Government.”
Therefore, the appointment of such a career Civil Servant as Clerk of the House would maintain Constitutional integrity of the Office, preserve the noble tradition of impartial appointments and sustain public confidence in the Office of Clerk of the House.
Mr. Chairman, in light of all the above, I urge that the decision to appoint Mrs. Deborah Charles to the position of Clerk of the House of Assembly be reconsidered and that her appointment be revoked. To do otherwise would erode public confidence in this quintessential Public Office and in our related democratic institutions and processes.
Respectfully,
Dr. the Honourable Godwin Friday
Leader of the Opposition
