Some members of the joint select committee reviewing the proposed Jamaica Teaching Council (JTC) Bill have raised concern that the careers of teachers with matters before the council’s Appeal Tribunal could be placed in jeopardy, if hearings are allowed to continue in the absence of the chairman.

Under the proposed law, all five tribunal members, including the chairman — who could be a retired judge of a superior court or an attorney-at-law with at least 15 years experience — are expected to be present for all hearings.

Committee members on Thursday grappled with what should pertain if the tribunal’s chairman is indisposed for a particular hearing.

The committee, in previous deliberations, had recommended an amendment to the provision to permit one of the other members of the tribunal present for the sitting at which the chairman is absent to act as chairman for that sitting.

However, Government member Kavan Gayle argued that the absence of the originally appointed chairman would have too many ramifications.

He said he was not in support of the idea of a panel hearing a matter and there’s a substantive member absent.

“My preference is to have a postponement until that substantive member is available. This is not a board meeting. This is not a regular meeting. This is an instrument entrenched in law for a particular purpose of which the objectives are very clear,” said Gayle.

He further argued that the decisions of the tribunal are likely resting on each member being presented with both verbal and physical evidence.

“We don’t know at what juncture of a hearing that the chairman would be absent. It may be when strong material evidence to which that chairman would have been relying on would have been presented…I would not want, if I am making a submission on behalf of an individual and this is my closing submission, having presented all the evidence for the chairman to be absent and not to hear my closing submission, which in effect may make the determination of a judgment and expose individuals to the possibility of a change in direction,” added Gayle.

Head of the committee Fayval Williams agreed with Gayle, arguing that given the “gravity of what is being considered and the decisions that can be life changing or profession changing, that we probably do not want to only have four persons hearing rather than the five and for the chairman to be [different].

“I am with member Gayle that we should try to preserve the five members at all times and if one is absent, then we seek to reschedule, even though that comes with its own set of [challenges] as well,” said Williams.

But another Government member, Floyd Green, was not in agreement with his colleague’s point of view.

He is of the belief that sittings should continue in the absence of the chairman.

“Yes, the chair is specifically chosen but… I am very sure that in the absence of the chair, in my mind it would be a better governance structure for a temporary chair to be placed there and for the deliberation to proceed.

“I wouldn’t want…that the meeting can only be had if the chair is available. That may have unintended consequences…I would support that structure where somebody can be appointed in the absence of the chair,” said Green.

“The question is, would…the person who comes before the tribunal want to have their matter further delayed because the chair…is unavailable?…The other option at that juncture would be not having the matter proceed and having a different date set. And I’m not sure if that would be in the best interest of anybody including the tribunal or the party who is appearing,” he said.

At the end of the proceedings, committee members agreed that the tribunal’s chairman should be afforded the flexibility to call on the portfolio minister to use her discretion in appointing a temporary chairman in his or her absence in order for the hearing to continue.