McTaggart’s U-turn revealed

| 26/05/2014

(CNS): A report from a parliamentary committee to be laid in the Legislative Assembly during this week’s meeting reveals that government back-bencher Roy McTaggart proposed a committee motion which he ultimately voted against when legislators last met. The U-turn by the George Town C4C member, who serves as a councillor in the ministries of finance and financial services, is shown in the minutes of meetings of the Oversight Committee for the Office of the Complaints Commissioner (OCC), chaired by Ezzard Miller. The document shows McTaggart had proposed and agreed that the committee chair table a report by the OCC on whistleblowing and move a motion in the LA that it be accepted as government policy.

According to the minutes from 1 April, seen by CNS, which are contained in the committee’s annual report, the members had discussed a report by Complaints Commissioner Nicola Williams on whistleblowing. During the meeting McTaggart moved a committee motion, which was seconded by opposition member Bernie Bush. The motion directed the chair to table William’s report and draft a motion for debate in the LA, as the committee members all agreed the report should be debated ahead of government adopting the recommendations in the report as policy.

However, some nine days later when Miller tabled the report and moved that agreed motion, not only did the government benches shy from debating the motion but McTaggart also voted ‘no’ to the adoption of the report’s recommendation, despite his position just a week earlier.

The motion and McTaggart’s U-turn caused a political stir, as the government appeared to be taken by surprise by the motion tabled by Miller. But the chair stated at the time that the motion proposed by McTaggart had been accepted by the committee members at the 1 April meeting, with the exception of PPM back-bench committee member Al Suckoo, who was not present.

The minutes for the following committee meeting on 15 April reveal that the committee was concerned that despite their agreement McTaggart had voted ‘no’ and that only the deputy governor and the premier had said anything on Miller’s motion. The commissioner was also very disappointed that the government had chosen not to debate the motion about her recommendations, given the significant public interest. She said such a debate and show of support would have “given comfort to whistleblowers".

Williams also revealed that despite her work she had not been consulted about the proposed legislation or discussion document which the Law Reform Commission recently published for public input. However, but her office had offered to assist and that offered remained.

Category: Politics

Comments (18)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    One Man One Vote would make the elected officials responsible to the people not the party.  PPM promised us in their manifesto.  many of those in office now were elected because of their stand on OMOV.

    We are seeing now why it is so important that it be implemented.

      We can also see why the Politicians who pretended they were for it do not want it.  They do not want the direct accountability that goes with it.

    It is time for them to live up to their promises.

  2. SKEPTICAL says:

    McTaggart goes in whichever direction he perceives the wind to be blowing. I would hate to be there when he decides which pair of socks towear every morning.

  3. 4Cayman says:

    Cayman poli tricks at its best! Can you imagine if all of the C4Cs  got in?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Making a motion and voting in favor of it are two different things. There is nothing in those minutes commiting the members to vote one way or the other after the motion is made.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Roy Joey Ossie Tara Wayne and Winston will one term MLA's in 2017

  6. Anonymous says:

    Roy "Flip Flop" McTaggart. 

    Just call all him "Flip" for short. 

  7. Anonymous says:

    U Turn? More like a B-Line  

  8. Anonymous says:

    Roy McTaggart is useless as a MLA now Cayman the proof. C$C must pull its endorsement because there is no independent thinking on display just confusion and incompetence.

  9. Anonymous says:

    What?! Say it aint so!!! Who do these people think they are?!! Making disicions without asking the Premier if it is ok!!!

    Just another day in this tragic comedy called Cayman.

    • And Nother Ting says:

      Isn't this pathetic,? Every time that member goes to do or not do he trip up n he foot goes up in his well you all know the rest 🙂

  10. Anonymous says:

    Wow and then when Mr Suckoo abstained he was attacked by his own Government members but Roy got away with this! If I was Al Suckoo I would watch my back with that bunch

    • Anonymous says:

      Mr. Suckoo is no fool!!

    • Anonymous says:

      12:19,  I have been telling AL that same thing.  He think that he know the PPM, well he better watch his backside with them.  I d hope the people of Bodden Town  realize that  the only decent MLA they have in Bodden Town is AL Suckoo and Anthony.   I do not know why they put Ozze back in, and Wayne Paton; where and who is he.

      Many of them will try to  ride on AL coat tail, but that   stlll wont help them.

    • Anonymous says:

      Let him enjoy his four years, we have seen what his performance is, a hill of beans, pity we were the beans to believe C4C and then politicial stupidity.

  11. Diogenes says:

    CNS  –   the minutes state only that the Chair be authorised to table the report, read the recommendation and, in accordance with standing orders, recommend its acceptance.  On its face all that does is ensure that the report gets tabled and discussed.  It is not a commitment to support the implementation of the recommendations, and even the Chair's support is consequent on Standing Orders needing at least one supporter before the matter can be adopted.  Nowhere does it suggest that all the members of the commitee should support it as a matter of policy.  Indeed, the reference "as required by Standing Orders" would be unnecessary if the motion was that the commitee considered the recomemendations had the full backing of the comittee.  Unless you can demonstrate that McTaggart said he would support it, there is no u turn.   Produce some evidence that McTaggart said he would support it in the LA, or even that he supported in committeee, because proposing a motion to ensure the report sees the light of day in the LA and debated is a million miles from saying he supported it and then changed his position.  One can be in support of an idea being debated without saying you support it.  This is sloppy journalism or mischief making. And no, I am no supporter of McTaggart, C4C and have no axe to grind here.  Just wish the reporting was a little more accurate and less "exciting".    

    CNS: Which minutes are you reading? The minutes in question are not in the least ambiguous or unclear. It looks to me as if the mischief making is the effort to discredit the article.

    "After some further discussion the Committee on a motion moved by Mr. Roy McTaggart and seconded by Mr. Bernie Bush agreed that the Chairman would table the Report in the House as well as read the recommendations, and in accordance with Standing Orders move that the recommendations be accepted as Government policy.

    "The Chairman was therefore asked by the Committee to draft a Motion to that effect."

    • Diogenes says:

      The same minutes.  Consider:

      1.  The Chairman suggest that all that is needed in order to have the report debated was move a motion (at Committee level) that the recommendations be accepted

      2. After some further discussion that motion is moved by McTaggart – to table the report, and in accordance with Standing Orders request that the recommendations be accepted as Government policy  (the SO do not allow you to move a negative recommendation – that the recommednations be rejected).

      That is all they say – not what you would like them to say, that McTaggart was supportive of the recommendations per se, or that he made some commitent to support them in the House, or what you think they mean on a superficial reading.  It is entirely possible that someone who agrees that the ideas should be tabled in the House (which opens them to the public  and I am not sure the report would be available if it had not been tabled – isnt that an age old concern of Ezzard's?) and /or that they should be debated in the House but actually disagrees with the recommedations could not only vote for such a resolution but move it.   Because if the motion isnt tabled and passed, guess what, report is not tabled, and there is no LA debate.  

      But hey, it is also possible that he DID initially support them and change his mind.  You may well be right.  My sole point was you cannot rely on the minutes to say as a logical and absolute conclusion, without any other evidence, that he did U turn.  There are other possibilities entirely consistent with the weird and wacky ways of Parlimentary procedure. 

      You obviousy think I have an axe to grind – i do not, just irritated at sloppy logic and reporters not corroborating a conclusion.  But  you know what – there is a simple solution.  You are the journalists, why dont you take the wild step of confronting him with the minutes, telling him what your interpretation is, and asking him to explain his position before you conclude on it.  And if he declines to explain himself in the face of a direct suggestion that he U turned, then you can let the readers draw their own conclusions.  But you are either psychic or too busy to take that fairly elemental step.  Lot easier to suggest I am a McTaggart supporter than deal with the underlying problem with your headline, eh? 

      CNS: Pretzel anyone? The committee could have voted to simply table the report, as is the usual practice.

      • Anonymous says:

        Dearest Diogenes McTaggart, Do you remember a statement issued by Mr. Suckoo where he accussed Ezzard and Arden of trying to destabilize the Government because of this motion and Mr. McTaggart telling him and others that no discussion had taken place at the meeting of the OCC committee on Mr. Miller tabling the motion — seems Mr. McTaggart may have gone alittle further than simply making a u-turn but deliberately miss-informed Mr. Suckoo and others. Should be interesting what Ezard's comments will be when he lays the report.

  12. Knot S Smart says:

    It was either an April Fools joke by Mr Mctaggart on April 1st, or 9 days later when his suggested motion was brought, he was confused and thought that he was in a round-a-bout and he could not figure out which way to turn…

    Those round-a-bout's can sure be confusing…