IT seems that newly appointed Political Ombudsman Donna Parchment Brown won’t have enough time to settle into the state of affairs inside her new office before being bombarded with election issues.

Already she is faced with the issue of political party flags planted across constituencies throughout the island; An issue I doubt she can win, and in which I know she will face the same insurmountable obstacles as her predecessor Bishop Herro Blair did in 2007 and 2011.

Now she has been faced with an even more challenging issue than the flags, which is that of restraining the political emotions pervading the election campaign.

This latest issue has blown up big time in the media following the frenzied outburst by young Member of Parliament (MP) Dwayne Vaz (Westmoreland Central) during a People’s National Party (PNP) rally in St James last week.

The use of violent Vybz Kartel lyrics on stage at a political rally is bad enough, considering that although Kartel was found guilty and sentenced to 35 years to life on murder charges in April 2014, he remains the favourite dancehall lyricist of most Jamaican youths.

The question is; How does an MP, and especially a Government MP, explain promoting the lyrics of someone who has been sentenced to 35 years to life for murder in a society so plagued by violence?

It seems that the line between crime and partisan politics has become so blurred that even Vaz has missed it. Therefore, it certainly wouldn’t be the figment of anyone’s imagination to think that those lyrics could soon be echoed within the chamber of Gordon House.

The fact that young Vaz, who, despite his youth, has considerable political experience, especially in dealing with youths in western Jamaica, failed to recognise the danger of quoting Kartel on a political platform is just another sign of how unprepared and immature, or even irresponsible our parliamentarians have become in terms of being conscious of their role in the society as leaders and role models.

It is not the first time that an MP has ventured outside the limits of accountability on the political platform, but it is probably the first time that the society has been so dramatically alerted to how thin the line has become between political correctness and political carelessness.

The fact is that, like the other commissions of Parliament created to protect the rights of Jamaicans, the effectiveness of the Office of the Political Ombudsman will remain relative to the commitment of the Government to provide the resources needed for their proper function, and how committed the people placed in these positions of authority are to protecting to the rights of the citizens.

In the past, it was claimed that a salary of approximately $8 million per year was too much to do a job which, MPs felt, wasn’t really necessary outside of an election period.

Speaker of the House of Representatives Michael Peart corrected that misleading impression in 2013, just prior to Blair’s resignation, pointing out that he was actually being paid $5.3 million per annum at the time.

There has been no public declaration on whether the new political ombudsman has assumed office at the same salary. But it must be obvious by now that if the Government does not intend to provide the resources needed to ensure an efficient and effective office, it would be better to end the charade and let the Electoral Commission of Jamaica find a mechanism to handle breaches of the political code of conduct. Otherwise, the ombudsman and her office are going to become the laughing stock of Jamaicans before the current election period is over.

There is nothing, so far, to indicate that the current holder of the office will garner any more respect than her predecessor.

I am still at a loss, as I guess most journalists are, about the decision by the Minister of Youth and Culture Lisa Hanna to make a statement in the House of Representatives, on Tuesday, regarding the report by the Office of the Children’s Advocate on investigations into the conduct of Child Development Agency (CDA) staff in removing wards of the State who were housed at the Sunshine Child Care Facility.

It was really unfortunate that what may have been a gross abuse of authority has left the media and the public so confused about what to make of the issue.

According to the report prepared by Children’s Advocate Diahann Gordon Harrison, “the CDA had good grounds” on which to be concerned about the welfare of the wards, who had been placed at the child care facility in light of an expired notice to quit.

However, it claimed that the CDA acted “capriciously and unreasonably” in carrying out the removal of the children.

The report accused the CDA of failing to “effectively communicate the actual date for the removal of the children”. It said “that only served to underscore the anxiety that already existed among the children and the inevitable chaos that would unfold during the process”.

It observed that the attitude of the CDA employees on the ground compounded the situation “and depicted the CDA as caring more about directives, as opposed to the well-being and state of mind of the children whom they are employed to serve”.

“The CDA breached Section 62 of the Child Care and Protection Act, which provides, inter alia, that one of the rights of a child who resides in a residential child care facility is the right to be consulted on matters that may (or will) impact upon him/her…It is very clear on the evidence that, though the children were spoken to, it was more to advise them of the impending move and not so much to engage them as to where they wished to be placed,” Gordon Harrison reported.

She found that the CDA “failed to satisfactorily prepare the wards for the impending move”. She also found that the “improper planning and indecent haste” in which the CDA acted, exacerbated the situation, as the CDA staff displayed disregard for the right of the wards to continuity of care, as well as some wards’ right to educational instructions.

The report confirmed that, “because of the sudden removal (of the children) executed by the CDA, there were some children who were out of school for approximately six weeks; this included wards who were preparing for national examinations”.

Now, anyone could be safely forgiven for feeling that there were enough grounds in those findings for the CDA staff to be disciplined for the inappropriate handling of the children and the issue. But, not so.

Despite indicating that disciplinary action would be taken, because what she had seen in the report was “inexplicable and unacceptable”, Hanna warned the media the following day at Jamaica House against expecting too much.

Asked at the Jamaica House press briefing whether the employees would face any penalties right away, notwithstanding an upcoming hearing, Hanna said that due process must be followed.

“One could hypothetically say the person should be fired, based on what I have seen in the report, but at the end of the day…all of us understand that sometimes we have to be merciful and understanding, [but] due process has to be followed. We will await the findings of their statement and the hearing so that any decision can be transparent across the board,” she said.

The disciplinary hearings are scheduled to start on December 22.

Tufton gets answers

Incidentally, thanks to Opposition Senator Dr Christopher Tufton, questions he tabled in July about procedures in the Senate have elucidated the following response from the Government about a matter which should be of interest to readers.

Question: Will the minister please advise the Senate of the procedure, with regards to a resolution passed in this Senate, which has been forwarded by the Parliament to the Cabinet and the relevant ministry?

Answer: Resolutions forwarded by the Parliament to the Cabinet are processed by the Cabinet Office and brought to the attention of the Cabinet in a timely manner. The Cabinet reviews the resolution and ensures it obtains all pertinent information on the subject before deciding on a course of action.

It then becomes the responsibility of the relevant minister to give effect to the collective decision of the Cabinet. Instructions are usually given by the relevant minister to the permanent secretary, or directly to the chief executive officers of the ministry’s portfolio agencies for the decisions of the Cabinet to be implemented.