Dear Mr Editor
As the editorial in last week’s newspaper pointed out, it is unseemly for the Opposition and the Speaker, Barbara Webster-Bourne, to detail their differences through the public display of their letters.
But in reading the two letters published in the newspaper, it seemed all too apparent that Evan Rogers focused on how the Speaker had not complied with proper practices, whereas Ms. Webster-Bourne, obviously sensitive and unwilling to accept any criticism in a mature fashion, instead accused her critics in a juvenile way of being “malicious”, “irresponsible”, lacking even “an iota of honesty”, and “reprehensible.”
The letter by Mr. Rogers, on the other hand, contained no words of personal invective, but rather addressed the defenses the Speaker raised to justify her actions, patently pathetic in their content. First, she contends that the motion the Opposition wanted to present at the beginning of the last session would have to wait until after the government had completed its agenda.
While presenting his motion, Mr. Rogers was interrupted twice by Chief Minister Hubert Hughes who objected to the motion before Mr. Rogers had finished and, yet, the Speaker not only did not reprimand Mr. Hughes for his lack of courtesy, but actually took Mr. Hughes’ side and ruled the motion out-of-order.
And now as she looks back, she argues in her letter that the motion was not properly presented because the Opposition had not placed it on the agenda ahead of time. A very funny position to take since in advance of the earlier meeting, a meeting that she had called which actually involved significant bills to be heard, she did not, as required, provide the Opposition with any information as to those matters. Moreover, she did not even notify one opposition member that a meeting was to be held.
Her response to this glaring oversight was that she, as Speaker, had the right to determine how members are to be notified. “I am authorized to set meetings and communicate with members” she asserted in her letter, an obvious improper power grab. Thus, according to the Speaker, the Opposition must provide information ahead of time about a mere motion they wanted to make, whereas, she had no obligation to inform them about what was involved in the meeting she had called.
Again, this is another example of how, since assuming her position, she appeared to have favored the government, namely its leader, Hubert Hughes, to the detriment of the Opposition. Remember that back in April of 2012 she got into an argument with Mr. Rogers about a casual remark he had made, and she chastised him and posed various slanted questions to him. As he was attempting to answer those questions, she abruptly told him to “sit down” and, when he did not, ordered him to leave the House.
The Speaker must at all times be fair and impartial to all members. She made the snide statement that a training program should be instituted so that the Opposition could learn about rules and procedure. The only education necessary is having someone convince her that she must treat each member fairly and impartially. She claimed in her letter that she shows “parity for all”. Her conduct and the tone of her letter attacking the Opposition shows otherwise.
Perceptive Citizen
