|
|
|
|
news articles
The Royal Gazette
27th October, 2011
Ombudsman reaches out to Island’s ‘less assertive’ residents
By Tim Smith
Ombudsman Arlene Brock is reaching out to “less assertive” people who may be afraid to pursue their right to make a complaint.
Ms Brock said her fifth report indicated the confidence with which people pursue their rights can be affected by differences in language, culture and education.
“Bermuda is becoming increasingly diverse. Many people come from countries where it can be intimidating to deal with people in authority,” said the Ombudsman in a statement. “It is therefore important that our own office be proactive as well.”
Ms Brock is setting up a public access group to provide input to her office on public outreach, diversity, social media and complainant feedback.
“Last year, we had a record number of complainants, most of whom were quite assertive about their grievances,” she stated. “We want to make sure that people who are less assertive also feel comfortable to use our services.”
She said the public access group will have nine volunteers representing a diverse cross-section of the public.
Each will serve for one- or two-year terms and meet quarterly, beginning in January 2012.
Ms Brock added: “The Ombudsman world is constantly evolving. With six years under our belt, we are reflecting on how to keep up with international standards in order to be more effective.
“A structured way for public input will help to ensure that we are accessible to all.”
Anyone interested in joining the public access group should submit expressions of interest by Monday, November 14, to info@ombudsman.bm. Telephone: 296-6541.
back to top
The Bermuda Sun
25th October, 2011
Bermuda Ombudsman press release
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25: Arlene Brock, Ombudsman for Bermuda, is establishing a Public Access Group to provide input to her office on public outreach, diversity, social media and complainant feedback.
Ms. Brock said: "Last year, we had a record number of complainants, most of whom were quite assertive about their grievances. We want to make sure that people who are less assertive also feel comfortable to use our services.”
The Ombudsman's 5th Annual Report referred to research that indicated that differences in language, culture and education can affect the confidence and fluency with which people pursue their rights.
Ms. Brock noted: “Bermuda is becoming increasingly diverse. Many people come from countries where it can be intimidating to deal with people in authority.
“We have recommended that government departments be sensitive to this. It is therefore important that our own office be proactive as well.”
The nine volunteers of the Public Access Group must represent a diverse cross-section of the public. Each will serve for one or two year terms and meet quarterly (beginning in January 2012).
Ms. Brock added: "The Ombudsman world is constantly evolving. With six years under our belt, we are reflecting on how to keep up with international standards in order to be more effective. A structured way for public input will help to ensure that we are accessible to all.”
Interested members of the public of all ages, ethnicities, cultures, occupations and backgrounds are invited to submit expressions of interest by Monday, November 14 to Ms. Suhartono at info@ombudsman.bm; tel: 296-6541; fax: 296-7734.
back to top
The Bermuda Sun
22nd July, 2011
Ombudsman calls for more transparency in education costs
By Raymond Hainey
Ms Brock asked for the probe after she found the Education Ministry had withheld funding for a special needs student to be educated overseas without fully investigating the case.
The Ombudsman said: “Information regarding the cost of providing a suitable education in Bermuda for this unique special needs student had not been calculated.
Compliance
“Therefore, the Minister did not have full information for his original determination of the amount of assistance provided by Education.
“We recommended that Education should provide to the Minister more robust and accurate information about the costs of providing a suitable education for the unique special needs of this child.”
“Further, this investigation pointed to a critical need for Education to establish a clear policy and programmes for special needs students to ensure compliance with both the Education Act and the National Policy on Disabilities.
“We recommended that Education request the Department of Internal Audit to conduct a thorough evaluation of its strategies to determine the most effective and realistic services for all categories of special needs students.”
The Ombudsman started an investigation after the child’s mother complained to the Ombudsman that the Education Ministry and the Psycho-Educational Committee of the Department of Child and Family Services had failed to provide adequate education in Bermuda, so should provide tuition overseas.
The mother — identified only as Parent A — claimed that the failure to do so “not only amounted to discrimination but would also doom her child to a lifetime of dependency when it was possible to educate him to become a fully functioning contributor to society.”
The Ombudsman’s investigation involved previous Education Minister Elvin James. He was later replaced by Dame Jennifer Smith.
Ms Brock said the Ombudsman had no powers to look at decisions made by Ministers or Cabinet, but could investigate “administrative actions of officers and employees of departments and other public authorities”.
She added: “Education was very responsive. The previous Minister visited the overseas school.
“Armed with better and full information, the new Minister readily made a decision to substantially increase the subsidy for overseas education for this student.
Apology
“She also initiated a review of the policy for all similarly affected students.
“With respect to the committee, a review of past practice allocations revealed that this is not a realistic source of supplemental funding for students with multiple disabilities who do not demonstrate severe psychological and or emotional needs.
“However, there was a serious gap in the committee’s 2009 policy and procedures manual.
“The public had no information about transparent criteria to determine eligibility for funding.
“The committee itself had no clear guidelines for how to prioritize and allocate scarce resources among eligible students.
“We recommended that the committee first apologize to Parent A for conflicting verbal information. Secondly, the committee should establish written policies and/or fill in the policy gaps.”
Ms Brock’s report added: “While families should certainly contribute to expensive overseas services to the extent that they are able to do so as the coffers of the Bermuda Government are not unlimited, Bermuda should not once again become a place where only people who can afford to pay, or who are the most informed or the most tenacious advocates can educate their children with special needs.
“The country should have an interest in ensuring that all such children receive the training and confidence that will enable them to become functioning, independent, contributing adults.
“We pay now or we pay later.”
back to top
The Bermuda Sun
22nd July, 2011
Man compensated after Debt Collection Agency 'dropped the ball'
By Raymond Hainey
A Government Ministry has forked out $5,000 to a businessman and apologized after failing to update records of a debt that was paid more than a decade ago.
The businessman complained to Ombudsman Arlene Brock after he found out that the debt — which dated back to the late 1990s — was still listed in Supreme Court records as outstanding in 2009.
Ms Brock said: “The responsibility to correct the records of the Supreme Court was the Ministry’s. The failure to do so, plus the attempt in 2009 to shift the burden of proof and action to the businessman, amounted to maladministration.”
The man — identified as Businessman F in a report by Ms Brock — had been the majority shareholder of a small company that owed payroll and other taxes in the late 1990s.
A court judgement allowed the debt to be settled by the minority shareholder in the course of the liquidation of the company.
Ms Brock said: “The Ministry should have informed the Attorney General’s Chambers, which would have closed the court proceedings in the records of the Supreme Court.”
But she added: “A few years later, in 2001, Businessman F learned, in distressing circumstances, that the records of the Supreme Court still showed the debt as outstanding.
“The lawyer for the minority shareholder sent all necessary proof of settlement for the debt judgement to the Ministry’s Debt Collection Office with the request that the court records be corrected. This was never done.
“Early in 2009, Businessman F had difficulties with a business opportunity when it was again discovered that the Supreme Court records still had not been properly marked.
“The Ministry put the burden on him to prove that the payment was made a decade earlier. Further, the Ministry informed him that it was his responsibility to ensure that the Supreme Court records were corrected.
“After six frustrating months, the Ministry finally gave instructions to the Attorney General’s Chambers to do so.”
Ms Brock said her team examined archives from Magistrates’ Court, Supreme Court, the Tax Commissioner, Official Liquidator, the Debt Collection Office, the Accountant General and records of the law firm that represented the minority owner.
The probe eventually turned up a copy of the cheque used to pay the debt and a receipt from the Accountant General, as well as a bank deposit form from the Debt Collection Office for the money.
Ms Brock said: “We could not locate any internal control documents to show to which account the payment was allocated.
“Nor was there any evidence of instructions from the Ministry to the Attorney General’s Chambers to correct the records of the Supreme Court. It appears that the Debt Collection Office dropped the ball, both when the payment was made and again in 2001.”
She added: “We recommended that the Ministry make a ‘without prejudice’ apology to Businessman F.
“In addition, as an apology was not an adequate recognition of the frustration and uncertainty that Businessman F had experienced, we recommended a consolatory payment in the amount of $5000.”
She added: “Consolatory payments are extremely rare, but recommended by the Ombudsman for those instances where, in all good conscience, an apology is just not sufficient.”
back to top
The Royal Gazette
22nd July, 2011
Ombudsman calls for review of special needs education
By Conor Doyle
A wholesale review of special needs education in Bermuda is underway after a recommendation by Ombudsman Arlene Brock.
In a report recently tabled in Parliament, Ms Brock detailed the results of an investigation prompted by a complaint from a parent of a special needs student.
Her findings, she said, “pointed to a critical need for the Department of Education to establish a clear policy and programmes for special needs students”.
Previous investigations of “gaps” in the services for special needs students had received assurances that a new strategy was forthcoming, the report said.
The latest investigation, however, found that “very little progress had been made or would be likely without external encouragement”.
The strategic review is being conducted by the Department of Internal Auditing, said the Ombudsman, with “the full and utter cooperation and enthusiasm from the Ministry of Education”.
Ms Brock’s report noted that the complexities of special needs education were not unique to Bermuda, but said there had been a “palpable cynicism and lack of confidence” in the Department’s ability to ”tackle the task of providing suitable education locally for special needs students”.
The Ombudsman said last night that as a result of the report, there was now an “absolute resolve, initiative and capacity to work through this” within the Ministry.
Meanwhile, Jose Lopez, president of the Dame Marjorie Bean Hope Academy parent teacher association, yesterday welcomed the report.
“I completely agree with the fact that there are gaps, but it doesn’t do any good to point fingers about how we got here,” he said.
“It’s more important to focus on a strategy going forward, to give government latitude and not expect everything to happen overnight.”
Mr Lopez said he hoped to see a “comprehensive strategy” evolve with an emphasis on transitional services for those with special needs.
He added: “There definitely needs to be more open communication and dialogue.
“There are a number of special needs organisations that are trying to organise an open discussion of what’s our current status and what’s the strategy going forward.”
He agreed with the report’s finding that working with various Government departments at once can be challenging for parents of special needs students, but added:
“The people who are in the system that are working with the special needs are very dedicated and the effort is there. But because of Bermuda’s size, being a small community it is hard to handle all circumstances”.
Although her office is not formally involved in the review, Ms Brock said she was being apprised of its progress and was pleased with what she had seen.
“I think what comes out of it will be stronger than what we started with,” she said.
back to top
The Royal Gazette
21st July, 2011
Ombudsman recommends special needs education review
By Sam Strangeways
Ombudsman Arlene Brock has recommended a review of the education provided to Bermuda’s special needs students.
In a report recently tabled in Parliament, she outlined a complaint a mother made to her about the failure of the Department of Education to provide adequate schooling for her child.
The Ombudsman investigated the case and found a “critical need” for the Department of Education to establish a clear policy and programmes for special needs students.
Ms Brock recommended the Department of Internal Audit be asked to conduct a thorough evaluation of the Department of Education’s strategies “to determine the most effective and realistic services for all categories of special needs students”.
That study, the first of its kind to be prompted by a recommendation from the Ombudsman, was due to be done in the second quarter of this year.
Ms Brock said: “An Ombudsman who merely resolves individual complaints, whilst that is important, is doing only half of her job.
“This complaint not only provided a resolution for one student but also, more broadly, will lead to enduring strategies to ensure that Bermuda improves its educational services for all special needs students.”
In her five-month interim report for the period August 1 to December 31, 2010, she wrote: “The country should have an interest in ensuring that all such children receive the training and confidence that will enable them to become functioning, independent, contributing adults. We pay now or we pay later.”
The original complaint made to Ms Brock by the parent was against the Department of Education and the Psycho-Educational Committee, which is overseen by the Department of Child and Family Services.
The Ombudsman praised the Ministry of Education “for moving swiftly to implement the recommendations and rectify the complaint as soon as it had gathered adequate data”.
The report, which was tabled in the House of Assembly on June 27, is available online at www.ombudsman.bm.
back to top
The Royal Gazette
7th April, 2011
Ombudsman launches SDO investigation
By Ruth O'Kelly-Lynch
The Ombudsman today said she had launched an investigation into how much information politicians should have when considering a Special Development Order.
Arlene Brock said she welcomed the decision to put SDOs before the Legislature, but said the recent debate surrounding the Tucker’s Point development lacked some important information.
During the debate Opposition MPs complained that they were being asked to sign over acres of protected land to save the five-star hotel, which is in financial difficulty, but were not allowed exam Tucker’s Point’s balance sheets.
This morning Ms Brock said: “The amendment requiring the vote by the entire Legislature for SDO applications is historic and commendable.
“However, decision-making and engagement with this new transparency should not be based on the old adversarial paradigm that characterised too much of the recent debate there seemed to be a plethora or opinions, but a dearth of data.
“Decisions of such national importance require thoughtful and respectful exchange. Now that the political process has run its course, we have an opportunity to reflect and learn lessons.”
Ms Brock said the “systemic investigation” would look into the scope of research and analysis that ought to be gathered, by environmental and other Government departments, to assist legislators as they consider SDO applications. The investigation aims to clarify what information should be provided to Parliament.
She added: “The quality of the decision-making process be Legislatures depends on the quality of information provided to them.
“I hope our recommendations will assist in a more reasoned, evidence-based debate for future applications.”
The public has until May 6, 5pm to provide the Ombudsman with their views on the matter. Their brief should be less than five pages. The briefs can be hand delivered to the Office of the Ombudsman at 14 Dundonald Street or to info@ombudsman.bm.
Ms Brock added that people should raise their concerns now and not after the report is compiled.
She added: “All submissions will be treated in the strictest confidence.”
It is not known when the investigation will be made public as the Ombudsman Office stated that investigation process depends in large part on the responses from the public and cannot be predicted.
back to top
The Bermuda Sun
7th April, 2011
Ombudsman to investigate SDOs
By James Whittaker
Senior Reporter
An investigation has been launched into the information available and criteria for granting Special Development Orders (SDOs) in the wake of the Tucker’s Point debate.
The struggling resort was ultimately granted permission to build new condos on conservation zoned land.
But protesters argued that MPs and senators did not have enough information – particularly about the hotel’s finances — to make an informed decision.
Ombudsman Arlene Brock today announced that she has launched a “systemic investigation” into the process for granting SDOs.
The investigation will cover “the scope of research and analysis that ought to be gathered to assist legislators as they consider applications for Special Development Orders”.
Ms Brock said: “The amendment requiring the vote by the entire Legislature for SDO applications is historic and commendable.
“However, decision-making and engagement with this new transparency should not be based on the old adversarial paradigm that characterised too much of the recent debate there seemed to be a plethora or opinions, but a dearth of data.
“Decisions of such national importance require thoughtful and respectful exchange. Now that the political process has run its course, we have an opportunity to reflect and learn lessons.
“The quality of the decision-making process by Legislatures depends on the quality of information provided to them.”
She said the investigation aimed to clarify the type of information, standards and criteria needed in making decisions on SDOs.
“I hope our recommendations will assist in a more reasoned, evidence-based debate for future applications.”
The public can submit views on the issue to the Ombudsman before 5pm on May 6.
Briefs should be less than five pages and can be delivered to the Office of the Ombudsman at 14 Dundonald Street or by email to info@ombudsman.bm.
back to top
The Royal Gazette
15th February, 2011
Ombudsman’s welcomes court's ruling
By Elizabeth Roberts
Ombudsman Arlene Brock has welcomed a landmark court ruling backing her right to hold Government to account.
Puisne Judge Ian Kawaley's decision yesterday in favour of veterinarian Susann Smith also gave his backing to the way the Ombudsman handled Dr Smith's case. Ms Brock has jurisdiction under the Ombudsman Act 2004 to investigate complaints of maladministration and recommend that offending public authorities reconsider inappropriate decisions.
When Dr Smith complained that her complaint to the Human Rights Commission had been mishandled, Ms Brock recommended the HRC re-open it.
The HRC agreed to do so, but Acting Minister of Cultural Affairs Michael Scott said it had no power to reopen a closed case, even if the Ombudsman had recommended it.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Kawaley said that was wrong in law.
“The Act must be construed as empowering the HRC to reconsider complaints which it has previously dismissed, especially where it appears that the original decision was invalid,” he said in a written judgment.
“This principle, which has never before been considered as a matter of Bermudian law, is of general application and is likely to apply to administrative decisions made by public authorities generally.”
The issue came to light when Ms Brock heard of Dr Smith's case by chance, and intervened to protect her own powers as an independent watchdog.
The judge said: “The court is indebted to the Ombudsman and her counsel [Narinder Hargun] for the light they have shed on an important area of public law.”
Responding to the ruling, Ms Brock told The Royal Gazette: “I was concerned to protect the authority of our office to make recommendations as we see fit.
“It is an impeccably thought through and brilliant judgment and I think it puts to bed questions about whether or not the Ombudsman can recommend that a Government department or board reverse a decision.”
She added: “I think it might be the first case in Bermuda, so it may be a pretty important case in other parts of the world.”
back to top
The Royal Gazette
5th February, 2011
Ombudsman’s office sees ‘huge spike’ in complaints
By Sam Strangeways
Ombudsman Arlene Brock found 30 examples of maladministration in Government and other public bodies in the last year.
Her latest annual report, tabled in the House of Assembly yesterday, cites cases involving 16 different departments, quangos or boards.
Examples outlined in her report include the failure of the Department of Labour and Training to properly investigate and complete employment complaints, delays in processing applications at the Department of Planning and the inadvertent registration of two charities with “substantially similar names” by the Charities Commission.
Ms Brock received almost double the volume of complaints from August 2009 to July 2010 than in previous years and yesterday attributed the “huge spike” to increased public confidence in her office.
“The big story for us is that we have steadily increased the number of complaints,” she said. “This last year was a huge increase.”
There were 248 complaints filed last year, compared to 143 the previous year and 129 in 2008.
Ms Brock, an independent official who investigates complaints against public authorities, said the higher figure looked set to be repeated this year, with her office receiving an average of about 20 complaints a month since the summer.
The Office of the Ombudsman referred 80 of the 248 complaints to other departments and handled 168 itself, as well as 54 cases still open from previous years.
By the end of July 2010, it had closed 145 cases and 77 were still to be resolved.
Ms Brock says in her report she received seven complaints from people left confused after filing employment complaints with the Department of Labour and receiving no formal letter on the outcome of their grievance.
“The Ombudsman has repeatedly recommended that Labour practise adequate and clear communication in the form of written correspondence,” writes Ms Brock.
She found the Department did not properly investigate the complaint of an expat who went to Labour after she was sacked from her job.
Ms Brock highlights in her report the Department’s role as the “first and often only line of defence against oppression and intimidation of workers who may not feel comfortable approaching other levers of power that Bermudian workers may feel more able to access”.
She states: “Labour must therefore ensure that its investigations are cognizant of power imbalances between employers and guest workers.”
Maladministration was also found at Bermuda College, Bermuda Post Office, the Accountant General’s Office, the Department of Social Insurance, Bermuda Hospitals Board, the Health Insurance Department, the Bermuda Archives, the Registry General, the Board of Trustees of the Golf Courses, the Department of Operations and Engineering, the Transport Control Department, the Department of Health and the Department of Immigration.
back to top
|
|
