Gordon Robinson | Rules are rules

The Old Ball and Chain insists I follow her house rules.

This came to mind when, on one of my infrequent outings (last Thursday), a reader reminded me I’ve been “leaving her alone” recently. I took this as a request for more of her and less of me.

Allrighty then!

Old BC’s rules are many and varied but El Numero Uno (sorry Don) is she’s always right. Once you understand the scope of that rule all else follows naturally and the words “yes dear” flow smoothly from your lips. This latter happens because another rule is to watch my tone. Tone, Old BC avers, is more important than and may contradict content.

Long term married men know about these rules and the essential nature of obedience. They’ll often have seen me propose that rules are rules (for children) but wives’ rules are equally mandatory for husbands.

There are rules also in dominoes. You have your House Rules (Gene Autry’s are Double-six poses the first game; the holder of double-six poses thereafter). Then there are rules of strategy one of the most important is NEVER cut partner’s pose willy-nilly. There are exceptions above and beyond a “compulsory play”. For example, say you hold six-five; six-trey; five-four; double four; four-deuce; four-blank; and trey-ace. Partner poses double-six and your left hand opponent (LHO) plays six-four.

First thing to do is resist smiling widely or performing two cartwheels and a puppalick! Then, with a despairing look, you cut your partner’s pose with six-trey. Do NOT play six-five! Why? For now, only you will suspect LHO’s play was “compulsory”. You suspect this because you have two sixes; partner posed six and LHO’s play was into your hand. If right hand opponent holds trey-four (please, please) he’s most likely to go two fours (thinking it’s his partner’s card) than two-treys (which seems to be your card). That dilemma can’t arise if you play six-five simply because you are looking at five-four.

Old BC has rules. Dominoes have rules. Life also operates on rules. The most important rules in that essential life experience called employment or any circumstance where one party holds authority over another are the Rules of Natural Justice.

Lawyers can and often do make these rules sound complex because, if what we do isn’t complicated to the point of mystery, clients might start realising they don’t need us. But these apparently complicated rules can be boiled down to one word. That word is “fairness”. Any person or entity with authority to make any decision adverse to another must do so fairly. This is the fulcrum of legal leverage called due process.

So, every Jamaican employee especially every civil servant (enjoys more secure tenure than a private sector employee to protect against political pressure) is entitled to due process before any adverse employment action can be taken. No civil servant can be dismissed from the floor of Parliament nor should MPs use the cloak of Parliamentary Privilege to cast any aspersion or to prejudice any disciplinary proceedings that might ensue.

Today isn’t the time (or space) to analyse a recent sensational report by OCA that has been used to condemn one public servant as if she was the only or major culprit (assuming institutional culpability). It’s enough for now to appreciate the report was based significantly on “Scanning diverse media sources, both local and overseas; Reviewing and analysing documentary evidence; Interviewing individuals who had useful information” then “Convening of a Hearing which was presided over by the Children’s Advocate for the purpose of giving the CEO an opportunity to COMMENT ON THE ADVERSE FINDINGS (my emphasis) that were brought forward by the investigations of the Children’s Advocate.”

So, adverse findings were made before CEO was heard. She was NOT heard by any disciplinary tribunal before which any complainant(s) were asked to prove any disciplinary charges but by The Children’s Advocate sitting as sole arbiter and acting as Complainant while presenting adverse findings for comment. Then, under pressure from media digging for news pyrite, a parliamentary axe was wielded.

As I say, no deep analysis today. I simply know from experience every story has three sides and no adverse finding should be made in the absence of at least two. I also understand CEO isn’t accused of personally harming any child but either negligently or recklessly facilitating potential harm. Be careful not to be distracted by political illusion (if that’s what this turns out to be) created to shift focus and cauterize investigations.

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.