SPECIAL ADVISER OPPAL SPINS TO SAVE SPEAKER
Plecas’ credibility is taking a huge hit in clerk, sergeant-at-arms imbroglio
The fallout continued Friday over the role played by Speaker Darryl Plecas in the ouster of legislature clerk Craig James and sergeant-atarms Gary Lenz.
A lawyer for the two fired off a letter to the three parties in the legislature Friday, arguing Lenz and James should be reinstated because of the way Plecas initiated the investigation that led to them being placed on administrative leave.
“The Speaker has no constitutional authority to carry out an investigation of the clerk of the legislative assembly and the sergeantat-arms,” wrote Vancouver lawyer Mark Andrews, “and no authority to hire a special adviser to do so.”
The special adviser being Alan Mullen, retained by Plecas back in January to address his concerns about James and Lenz.
Mullen then spent seven months pulling together the material that was delivered to the RCMP in August, leading to a formal police investigation and the appointment of two special prosecutors.
Lawyer Andrews hastened to say that his clients were not asking for a halt to the formal investigation: “They will co-operate and wish it to proceed with dispatch.”
Rather, he argued the fact of the investigation did not justify his clients being placed on leave, particularly given the questionable roles of Plecas and Mullen.
“Neither the Speaker, nor his special adviser, should have been behind such a process as has been followed in this case,” wrote Andrews. “Furthermore in our view the Constitution Act does not authorize the placing of these most senior officers of the legislature on administrative leave.”
The act provides for the legislature to appoint the clerk and sergeant-at-arms by majority vote. But it appears to be silent on any procedure for their removal.
The Opposition responded to the letter by seeking an emergency meeting of all three parties in the legislature.
While MLAs could reverse themselves and reinstate James and Lenz, I doubt there would be a consensus to do so, any more than there would be a common agreement to challenge Plecas.
Despite the Speaker’s questionable dealings in this matter — up to and including his ridiculous suggestion that Mullen replace Lenz as sergeant-at-arms — the New Democrats have rallied around him.
Frankly, they can’t do without Plecas in the Speaker’s chair. With NDP MLA Leonard Krog preparing to resign his seat to take up duties as the newly elected mayor of Nanaimo, the balance of power will be a precarious 43 New Democrats and Greens to 42 Liberals.
Helping to run interference for Plecas on Friday was his newest special adviser, Wally Oppal. The former judge and attorney general (under the B.C. Liberals) was retained at the behest of the New Democrats in the belief that the Speaker needed better advice than provided by Mullen.
Oppal rightly said he couldn’t comment on the matters now in the hands of the police and prosecutors.
But he also urged reporters to leave Plecas alone. “It is somewhat unfair in my view to be cross-examining the Speaker,” said Oppal. “He’s in a quasi-judicial role.”
I am indebted to one of Oppal’s former colleagues for pointing out that there is nothing quasi-judicial about the office of Speaker. “Wally is so charming and suave that he fools everyone into thinking he knows what he is talking about.”
Continuing his defence, Oppal characterized Plecas as “a well-spoken, intelligent person with a great academic background,” who “didn’t do anything in a capricious way.”
Not even when he put the preliminary investigation in the hands of Mullen, a friend with no background in either legal or policing matters? Nor when suggesting that once Lenz was placed on leave, Mullen should be sergeantat-arms?
“Peripheral stuff ” to the police investigation, replied Oppal. Yet central to concerns about the Speaker’s judgment, conduct and working relationship with Mullen.
In that regard, I had a conversation Friday with a private investigator with 25 years’ experience.
He pointed out that to investigate any civil or criminal matter here in B.C., one must first be licensed by the provincial government.
In the absence of proper licensing, he went on to note, the fruits of one’s investigative work can readily be discounted or dismissed in either a civil or criminal proceeding.
With that in mind I called Mullen to ask if he were a licensed private investigator. “No.” He went on to say that he was aware of the licensing requirement, but insisted he was not, in fact, acting as an investigator when he worked for Plecas.
But that was not the impression he gave in media scrums this week, telling reporters “I have conducted many investigations.”
Did he investigate the allegations against Lenz and James before handing the material over to the police?
“For lack of a better term, sure,” he replied. “It’s more just going through the process and gathering information.”
When I reminded him of those comments, Mullen said I was “playing semantic games.” Plecas had asked him to carry out an assignment and he had done so. End of conversation.
But not the end of the problems for his mentor.
The Speaker’s plan, backed by the New Democrats, is to lay low until the house adjourns Tuesday, then hope the concerns go away before it resumes in February.
But in the absence of a proper explanation and justification from the Speaker himself for his questionable judgment in this affair, the blot on his credibility will be permanent.
In the absence of proper licensing ... the fruits of one’s investigative work can readily be discounted or dismissed in either a civil or criminal proceeding.