RailGate Reality Check...It's All In The Perceptions

Conflict?

WeDon'tNeedNoStinkin'ConflictVille

Robin Mathews has a very good piece up at Mary's wherein he, as someone who was in court nearly everyday, gives his opinion on how the 6 million dollar deal went down, what it really meant for both the accused and the accusers, and where it came from.

The entire post is well worth the read.

But I want to highlight one point that Mr. Mathews has made a number of times before:

"...The appointment of (Special Prosecutor) William Berardino by a ministry whose Attorney General (Geoff Plant) had been Berardino’s (law) partner and colleague for seven years and whose Deputy Attorney General (Allan Seckel) had been his (law) partner and colleague for eleven years was plainly, outrageously wrongful....."

Now.

Mr. Mathews offers up a number of reasons why this appointment was wrong, many of which are based on his (i.e. Mr. Mathews) opinion of intent.

I cannot vouch for that opinion.

However, it is my own opinion that the original appointment of Mr. Berardino was wrong, if only from the point of view that it placed the Special Prosecutor in the position of being in a perceived conflict of interest. Furthermore, as the role of the particular Deputy Attorney General involved in the original appointment grew, often in leaps and bounds, the case could be made, in my opinion, that the potential for a perceived conflict also grew significantly.

All of which is interesting given how that potential has never been considered seriously by the proMedia, in either direction, given that the Deputy AG involved was ultimately catapaulted into the old Premier's office and then, when the new Premier moved in, was catapaulted out even more suddenly with the heftiest of hefty severance parachutes of $549,776 strapped to his back.

Which brings me to my final point regarding the potential for a perceived conflict which came not in the first, but instead in the last, act of the RailGate affair.

And that is the case of the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Graham Whitmarsh, who together with the then Deputy AG David Loukidelis, made the call, last fall, to payout six million dollars from the public purse to bring the RailGate trial to a sudden end.

Why, in my opinion, had the good Mr. Whitmarsh, been placed in a position where he could potentially be perceived to be in a conflict of interest?

Because he recently worked at the same firm, not a lawfirm mind you, but instead at a now defunct Airline, that former Finance Minister, Mr. Gary Collins also worked at.

Why does that matter?

Well, don't forget, it was the good Mr. Collins, who was scheduled to appear as a witness, under oath, at the RailGate trial just before the six million dollar deal went down.

And who, allegedly, started the ball rolling on that deal?

Why, it was none other than that the very same, and very fine, Special Prosecutor discussed at the top of this post.

****

And my point here is?

Well.....

Enterprising members of the proMedia need not to wait for Auditor General John Doyle to pass judgement on the six million dollar deal based on potentially privileged information that may never see the light of day.

Why?

Because there is all kinds of information lying around under the blazing hot July sun that they could use as a starting point to get to the bottom of this thing right now.

For example, why doesn't some sharp young reporter call Mr. Whitmarsh up and ask him, straight-up, if he ever worked directly with Mr. Collins at Harmony Airlines? Alternatively, they could call up Mr. Collins himself. Or, how about calling up their boss at the Airline back in the day (eg. 2006) and ask him if he ever had Mess'rs Collins and Whitmarsh work on projects together back then.

Then again, that particular former airline magnate may have other things on his mind at the moment that reporters might want to ask him about as well.

OK?

.