Appointment wasn’t patronage: premier
Joyce says he wants to wait for amendments to come forward before he decides how to vote, but he did commit to casting a vote on the matter, one way or the other. He says he takes no pleasure in potentially casting the deciding vote.
“It’s sad, actually. To have another member go through what I went through. I don’t wish that on anybody,” said Joyce.
“I’m not the type of person, because I went through it, I want to see someone else go through it. I don’t think it’s right. I think there should be a better way to handle this kind of stuff. I don’t take no pride, no solace that I can give it to this guy, or give it to the premier.”
The motion being debated in the House of Assembly would see Mitchelmore stand in his place and apologize to the House of Assembly. But members of the Progressive Conservative and NDP caucuses have indicated an apology isn’t enough. Mount Pearl-southlands Independent MHA Paul Lane has also indicated he doesn’t think an apology is enough.
Labrador West NDP MHA Jordan Brown brought forward an amendment to the original motion on Wednesday morning calling for the House of Assembly to instruct Premier Dwight Ball to remove Mitchelmore from cabinet and instruct The Rooms to remove Foote from her position and start a new hiring process.
The amendment was ruled out of order by Deputy Speaker Derek Bennett, who said the amendment was outside the power of the House of Assembly.
No additional amendments have yet come forward, but it’s still expected the opposition will bring some forward.
Meanwhile, Ball doesn’t think the appointment could be considered patronage.
“No, not at all. It was a contract that was put over there to do a job. The position was open at the time. We put in place another executive director, as well. I think both those positions are being filled now by very competent people,” Ball said.
“I think we’re seeing the fruits of those efforts right now. We want to continue to work with The Rooms.”
Citizens’ Representative Bradley Moss wrote that he believed Mitchelmore had broken his duty to uphold the MHA Code of Conduct, particularly the sections referring to his duty to improve the economic and social circumstances of the people of the province, that he act lawfully and in a manner that will withstand close public scrutiny, that he base his conduct on the consideration of the public interest, and that his relationship with public officials be professional, based on mutual respect, and regard the duties of those employees to remain politically impartial.