Clash at Clarendon corporation meeting over circulation of court documents

A dispute over the circulation of court documents relating to the legal battle involving Clarendon Mayor Joel Williams and Deputy Mayor Clive Mundle erupted during Thursday’s council meeting, with People's National Party (PNP) Caucus Leader Councillor Scean Barnswell questioning whether the documents should have been distributed at an open meeting.

Barnswell challenged the decision to circulate the injunction, affidavit and applications filed by the claimants and defendants, arguing that the documents contained confidential information and that their distribution in the presence of members of the public and the media could breach the court's instructions.

The legal proceedings stem from a challenge by Williams and Mundle against the municipal corporation, following moves to remove them from their respective positions.

An injunction was obtained on October 16, halting a proposed no-confidence motion against the two officials.

During the meeting, Barnswell questioned whether Chief Executive Officer Rowhan Blake, who is also named as a defendant in the proceedings, was advised by the corporation's attorney to circulate the documents.

“I can remember seeing something marked confidential in the email received, so I just wanted to find out if the CEO, who is a defendant to the case, was advised by the attorney to circulate these documents, because they are marked private and confidential,” Barnswell said.

He questioned whether Mayor Williams, in his capacity as chairman of the corporation and a claimant in the proceedings, had instructed Blake to distribute the documents at the meeting, which was being attended by councillors, members of the public and the media.

The mayor responded, "Yes, I did."

Barnswell responded: “I want to place on record that the chairman, in his capacity as the claimant to the case, asked the CEO, the defendant, to circulate the application at a full council meeting."

Barnswell insisted that the circumstances surrounding the circulation should be reflected in the meeting's minutes.

However, Blake defended the decision, explaining that the documents were shared to ensure councillors were informed about the legal proceedings, as they had an interest in the matter.

Blake said the documents, comprising the injunction, affidavit and applications filed by the claimants and defendants, were public records and could be accessed online.

“The documents are to be shared with the council, because all councillors are interested in this matter,” Blake said, adding that they were to be returned after the meeting.

“Based on legal instruction, those documents are also public documents. Anyone can go on the website. But, as the CEO of the corporation, I can't act without the council being aware of what is happening,” he said.

Barnswell, however, maintained that the circulation was inappropriate, pointing to what he said was a provision in the affidavit restricting discussions involving the CEO at committee meetings or with employees and other persons within the corporation.

He further objected to the chairman's instruction to have the matter entered into the minutes, arguing that doing so could effectively open the door to discussions on an issue before the court.

“I just want to place on record, chairman, that you have breached the confidentiality of the court, and the instruction of the court, and it must be reflected in the minutes what you have instructed the CEO, who is a defendant to the court, what he should have done,” Barnswell said.

The legal dispute between Williams and Mundle and the corporation arose after the PNP secured a 12-10 majority in the 22-member council following the political switch of May Pen North Councillor Tanyalee Williams from the Jamaica Labour Party to the PNP.

The two JLP-affiliated officials subsequently obtained an ex parte interim injunction from the Supreme Court on October 16, restraining the corporation from considering, debating or voting on motions seeking their removal and the election of new leadership.

The order is scheduled to remain in effect until the matter returns to court on November 13.

- Olivia Brown

Follow The Gleaner on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.