Deputy clerk resigns amid ‘retaliatory’ environment at Parliament

Describing the treatment he faced during his two-year tenure in office as “retaliatory”, former Deputy Clerk to the Houses of Parliament Christopher Cowan has listed a series of concerns among the reasons for his resignation with immediate effect yesterday.

Cowan’s five-page letter to Speaker of the House of Representatives Juliet Holness described a “contentious” environment in which he said he was made to operate, the removal and denial of privileges, as well as the “retaliatory approach” of Clerk to the Houses Colleen Lowe.

The resignation letter, obtained by The Gleaner, outlines numerous occasions when he said his office and position had been “undermined” following differing opinions on matters and questions about process and procedure.

Noting that he was duly appointed by the governor general in August last year on the recommendation of Senate President Tom Tavares-Finson and Holness, he said Lowe’s decision to appoint an assistant clerk to act in her absence was overturned after his complaint, and that the incident has been used against him, raised in several situations, and cited as “insubordination”.

“This decision took place early in my tenure, and the reason posited then was ‘inexperience’. However, this decision immediately followed a disagreement concerning an incident in the Chamber and subsequent discussions between the clerk and I in her office following a particular sitting of the House of Representatives. This is indicative of the clerk’s continuous retaliatory approach to staff administrative matters,” Cowan argued.

He said tensions between himself and the clerk cannot be denied and are well documented.

Among the concerns was tension over “overseas travel for members and reimbursement of travel claims”.

He denied insubordination.

“At no time have I been insubordinate to the Clerk to the Houses. I have followed all reasonable and lawful directives which have been issued from her office, I have also however refused to engage the clerk in countless rounds of unproductive and contentious dialogue in which the only clear and apparent purpose is to frustrate and to undermine the Office of the Deputy Clerk and its staff,” Cowan stated.

He said this stance has caused “countless disagreements with the clerk”.

CONSTANT ATTACK

Acknowledging that conflicting perspectives are expected in evolving and productive organisations, he alleged that “rather than undertaking constructive dialogue where there may be areas in which we differ, the clerk has embarked on a constant attack on my character, personal competence and integrity in a variety of forums, form and audience”.

Citing a recent meeting of the Human Resource and Executive Committee, where he said he raised concern about the process being used to appoint a particular officer, he said he thereafter put those concerns in writing on the appropriate form during the meeting.

“The clerk, in response, alleged that I had misrepresented her comments which I disagreed with. I also, however, asked her to clarify to ensure that my comments were in fact accurate. This was not done. Rather, the clerk chose to physically cross out my comments to my astonishment, and in response, to which I raised strong objection. The clerk demanded that I leave the meeting. I refused and the clerk left and later suspended the meeting...,” Cowan wrote.

Yesterday evening, Phillip Paulwell, leader of opposition business in the House, told The Gleaner he was concerned about staff and interpersonal issues at the administrative level of Parliament, as well as the lack of opportunities to resolve them.

“I am concerned about the continued instability in our Parliament. It does not look good. I am deeply concerned about the turnover rate that continues to be high, especially among the senior staffers at the Parliament,” he added.

An email was sent to Lowe last evening requesting a response to the allegations made in the letter; however, there was no response up to press time.

Meanwhile, Cowan said his outlining of his concerns was due to his awareness that the affairs of Parliament are matters of public importance and concern.

He said it was not his “intention to communicate anything which may bring this noble institution into disrepute”.

His comments, he said, “are therefore intended to provide clarity and serve as an impetus to meaningful change in the administration, and in particular the human relations at the Houses of Parliament”.

editorial@gleanerjm.com