Judge vs court executive

TENSIONS in the Judiciary have led to a war of words between one high court judge and the court executive administrator.

In a strongly worded e-mail, Justice Carol Gobin took offence to the “tone” used by court executive administrator Master Christie Anne Morris-Alleyne in response to her request for a meeting to discuss changes in the Judiciary.

Morris-Alleyne declined to meet with the judge, saying instead that the changes “will be of no concern” to judges sitting in the civil courts. She said the elements of restructuring now taking place in the criminal courts' system were all in support of the introduction of case-flow management in criminal courts.

Morris-Alleyne went further, saying she was disappointed that Gobin chose to involve staff assigned to her. “I try my best not to never throw anyone under the bus. Neither do we seek to ride on the backs of others to score brownie points or to show or feed the brown seeds of discord. That, however, is a matter for you and your understanding of appropriate organisational behavior,” Morris-Alleyne said in an emailed reply to Gobin.

“As we know, the dispensation of justice is not about any individual. It is about a critical institution established for the good and welfare of the people. It is bigger than any and all of us and must be here and intact long after we are gone. I pray that good sense will always prevail and that our national watchwords guide us,” Morris-Alleyne told the judge.

At present, judiciary workers are engaging in daily protests which include prayers on the steps of the Hall of Justice as they express concern of security of tenure which could be affected with the restructuring taking place within the judiciary.

Gobin took serious umbrage to the tone of Morris-Alleyne’s response, saying it was “inappropriate and discourteous,” leaving her to even wonder if it was an April fool’s joke.

KNOW YOUR PLACE

“First, a gentle reminder, I am a judicial officer and you are a court administrator. You should have some respect for my office,” Gobin said in her reply to Morris-Alleyne sent late yesterday afternoon and copied to all judges of both the appeal court and the high court, including Masters.

Gobin confessed to Morris-Alleyne, that her response took her (Gobin) by surprise. “You appeared on a television show broadcast under a caption ‘Judiciary Clears the Air’, to do just that one would imagine. But you seem to have taken serious exception to my asking you to do the same on a specific aspect of the matter.

“I have meandered through the verbiage contained in your email and I am still unable to extract the answer to my question. You seem to have dodged it so I shall repeat: Will my team be affected,” Gobin asked. The judge added that her staff was more than designations of temporary clerk and orderly, and were “human beings, real people, with real names, families.”

“Among them are mothers who leave sleeping children to face traffic to get to work with me, a man who qualified for a different, better-paying post as a bailiff I believe, but who preferred to remain to work with me.

“They are people who have financial obligations and responsibilities and plans for their future and now they have very real and growing concerns about their job security. I am not competing with their trade union representative, I simply care for them,” Gobin said.

She also made no apology for speaking up for them, on their request, and said she would not be distracted by any attempt by anyone to insinuate improper motives on her part.

HELP DESK IS 'INAPPROPRIATE'

“Organisational behaviour that favours silence is very popular in the current environment, but for some of us it is impossible to carry on with business as usual with no thought for the feelings of the people we love and consider our judiciary family,” Gobin said.

The judge also said a previous meeting with staff in February did not answer all questions staff had on the restructuring exercise, nor did it quell their concerns. “It only fuelled their anxiety,” Gobin said.

She also noted that the Help Desk established at the courts was “an inappropriately impersonal method of dealing with the staff, which indicates an insensitivity to the needs of people who fear they will lose their jobs or be shifted around after years of serving the Judiciary.

“Please consider, in relation to my team, facing me and them and answering our questions. This is just the humane thing to do,” Gobin said.

She also took offence to “the snide comments” made about her history with the Civil Proceeding Rules of which she was initially against. But, Gobin said, this was only because that the first attempt to pass the rules in 1999 failed because of the neglect or deliberate omission of the Judiciary’s administration to properly consult with the profession and the public.

“I remain proud of my role in a movement that successfully stumped efforts to railroad the profession and to impose a system for which we were not ready.

“For me, it was never a question of resistance for the sake of resistance. Indeed, I sat on the rules implementation committee and a monitoring committee for several years to ensure that anticipated problems and issues which would arise, following the introduction of the new rules, would be addressed.

“The administration failed on the first attempt, not because of the rules themselves, but because of the flawed approach to change management, “ Gobin noted, adding that her main concern then was the effect the new rules would have on the poor who access justice.

“I have not abandoned my philosophy. I have consistently voiced concerns on the very issues in my judgments, my support for the general improvement, notwithstanding. “So my team and I have no secrets on this issue,” Gobin said as she requested of Morris-Alleyne to “just answer” the question, as, “it was the only thing that is going to bring peace of mind” to Gobin's “dedicated team members.”