"We can't allow things that are inaccurate to stand." — The Word of Our Dan, February 19, 2008.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

HR Policy (II)

Tom Marshall accuses Darlene Neville, December 17, 2009:
MR. T. MARSHALL: A breach of confidentiality or a breach of an oath of office may also constitute misconduct. Mr. Speaker, with this in mind, allow me to provide my hon. colleagues with a summary of the misconduct upon which the resolution to remove Ms Neville as Child and Youth Advocate is based.


Mr. Speaker, the third area of misconduct arises from Ms Neville’s breach of confidentiality and her Oath of Office. Section 13.(1) of the Child And Youth Advocate Act is clear and unambiguous. It reads, "Confidentiality of information 13.(1) The advocate and every person employed under him or her shall keep confidential all matters that come to their knowledge in the exercise of their duties or functions under this Act."
Yvonne Jones recalls some inconvenient history, December 21, 2009:
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in the minister’s opening comments in the House he cited very clearly the cases regarding confidentiality.

Mr. Speaker, when the former Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development went on an Open Line program and read from a Cabinet document no disciplinary action was taken. Even though this is considered a breach of confidentiality, the former minister received nothing only support from his colleagues.

I ask the minister: What is the difference between a minister breaking this confidentiality rule and an officer of the House of Assembly?


In fact, Mr. Speaker, when there were calls made and questions asked with regard to that breach of confidentiality of a Cabinet document, it was his colleagues on the other side of the House who actually supported him, who actually spoke in support of him and his actions, and made light of the situation.

What makes a breach of confidentiality by a Cabinet minister any different than a breach of confidentiality being alleged toward Ms Neville today, or toward any Officer of the House of Assembly? Why is it that they would be terminated from their job but, yet, a Cabinet minister would be patted on the back and light – very light - made of the entire issue? Because that is exactly what happened.
Danny Williams engages in a bit of freelance proactive disclosure, August 6, 2008:
During the session with reporters, Williams also accused MUNFA president-elect Ross Klein, one of the most vocal critics of the government's involvement, of a double standard.

"Professor Klein actually wrote me last year a two-page letter concerned about the fact that he had not been given enough funding for a venture that he went on with the university," said Williams.

"It was for my information, but by the same token, why would he bother to write me, as premier, if he doesn't want us to be interfering with academic autonomy? It doesn't add up."


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home