MEMBERS of the Senate last Friday hailed the appointment of new Political Ombudsman Donna Parchment Brown, who was sworn-in at King’s House on November 16.

Parchment Brown replaces Bishop Herro Blair, the third political ombudsman. The first person to serve in the post was Justice James Kerr, who was succeed by Errington Green.

It is interesting that while Bishop Blair’s resignation in 2013 was prompted by mounting objections, especially from the MPs, to the need for an Office of Political Ombudsman, there seems to be much more tolerance for Parchment Brown.

The objection to Blair was first raised in the House of Representatives that year by Opposition MP Everald Warmington, and it flourished among the new Government backbenchers.

Warmington tabled a motion in 2012, urging Parliament to consider whether or not there was still need for a political ombudsman. He felt that the office had already fulfilled its mandate, and there was a need to determine its relevance within the existing political structure? Whether or not the expenditure of the office is justified? And, whether its functions were not embodied in the electoral process, which is overseen by the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ).

Warmington’s motion attracted the support of Government backbenchers who insisted that the office had become redundant with the significant reduction in political tribalism and should at least be repositioned as a voluntary post within the ECJ.

The Government MPs claimed than that a $10 million salary for the ombudsman was too much to be paid to someone who was needed only at election time.

Warmington raised the question as to what exactly has happened to his resolution, since it was approved following a review by the House’s Human Resource and Social Development Committee, headed by Opposition MP Ruddy Spencer, when the House met last Tuesday.

He reminded Leader of the House Phillip Paulwell that the position should have been abolished, as that was what was accepted in the report from the House Committee.

But the Opposition MP insisted that if the report was approved by the House and sent to Cabinet, and Cabinet did not accept the recommendation, a response should have been sent back to the House.

“We should not read in the newspaper that a political ombudsman has been appointed after this Parliament, the highest authority and body in this country, takes a position,” he stated.

Paulwell pointed out, however, that the appointment of a political ombudsman is the authority of the governor general, on the advice of the prime minister. But he admitted that a response should have been sent back to the House.

To be honest, the Cabinet has not accepted several radical changes suggested by new MPs on both sides, including that for changing the name of the budget debates and revising the prayer, but the issue of whether we still need the political ombudsman is a much more external than the others.

But one gets the feeling that Government members of both Houses of Parliament are much more comfortable with the presence of Parchment Brown in the seat of ombudsman.

Blair, who was appointed in 2002, on the advice the then Prime Minister PJ Patterson and the Leader of the Opposition Edward Seaga, made a number of complaints about the limitations of the office. He wanted the political Code of Conduct revised, for example. In fact, he advised that the code was done in haste and needed revision.

In 2002, the very year that the Blair took office, Seaga questioned the relationship between the Office of the Political Ombudsman and the then Electoral Advisory Committee (now the Electoral Commission of Jamaica) and the need for clarification.

Seaga asked how the two bodies would interact to ensure that electoral irregularities are detected and dealt with.

“I think it would be a bit messy if, on the one hand for the ombudsman to be receiving complaints and on the other hand the other body (is receiving complaints, as well),” he told the House during the debate on the Political Ombudsman (Interim) Bill in 2002.

The 2002 debate on the Interim Bill had become necessary because there was a need to reintroduce the Office of the Political Ombudsman, which had become redundant with the creation of the Office of the Public Defender.

Blair himself seemed confused about the future of the office. He was reported as actually saying in December 2011, prior to the general election, that the office was losing importance.

“By the time the next general election comes around I don’t think that there will be need for us to continue with an ombudsman. It would appear as if our politicians are mature to the point where they can deal with the situations. We are getting there. We are not there yet, but I believe within five to seven years this should be the case,” he said then.

In July 2013, however, he suggested that the office be retained, with the holder having additional powers, noting that although maturing, Jamaican politics had developed some negative practices that would need intervention.

He said that the 2011 election campaign had produced nearly 200 complaints to the office about breaches of the code , which was far more than in the previous years. He suggested that the issues had moved to a new level which needed attention.

The bottom line, however, is that currently the office has about three members of staff and is housed within the offices occupied by the Houses of Parliament.

Is this where a commission dealing with political incidents, including violence, should be located? Is the staff anywhere near what a new ombudsman would need to do an effective job? And, will the office have a budget to do any work, considering how tight the budget for Parliament is?

Commissions of Parliament

After 10 months and two extensions to its deadlines, the committee which has been reactivated to deal with reports from the commissions of Parliament, has still failed to produce the results of its first review.

The fact is that when these reports are sent to Parliament after they are tabled and the media takes from them what they think is newsworthy, that’s it. So, it was no surprise that several of the commissions, including the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Contractor General, the Office of the Public Defender, the Corruption Prevention Commission and the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) have consistently criticised the lack of oversight and the failure to review their reports and give consideration to their recommendations.

In responding to the issue, which was raised by INDECOM Commissioner Terrence Williams during the recent meetings of a Joint Select Committee reviewing the commission’s performance over its first five years, a committee which originated under the previous Government, under the chairmanship of the deputy speaker of the House, was reactivated to deal with these reports.

However, 10 months later the committee is just about to table its first report in the House of Representatives. The report is regarding a conflict between Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewellyn and INDECOM over her decision to drop the prosecution of four accused persons, including three policemen, for the killing of an aspiring music deejay, Robert ‘Kentucky Kid’ Hill in 2009.

The committee missed two deadlines in the process, failed to meet on more than one occasion and had to seek the House’s support for the two extensions.

Now that the report is almost ready, it has become obvious that all they had needed to do was to seek the advice of the Attorney General’s Department regarding the issue raised by INDECOM, that private citizens should be allowed to do their own prosecution of cases dropped by the DPP on the basis of a lack of evidence.

This week’s schedule:

Today – sitting of the House of Representatives;

Wednesday, December 2 – Public Administration & Appropriations Committee;

Thursday, December – Sitting of the Senate; and

Friday, December 4 – Sitting of the Senate.