No suggestion donations were sinister or corrupt

While I strongly applaud The Telegram’s call for fixing campaign financing rules, I wish to clarify that my words have been taken far beyond their original meaning by both The Telegram and others.

The Telegram has a full recorded interview with me for its use on this matter, which will validate what I say here.

My comments regarding Justice Robert Stack did nothing to question his credentials, his abilities, or his person.

They related singularly to what is usually known as appearance of, or perception of, conflict, which most political observers, as well those studying law or ethics, will be well aware.

I made it clear that I was not saying that Justice Stack should recuse himself.

I made many points in both interviews I gave on this story which could not be included. Criticism has focused on meaning that doesn’t exist in what was included.

However, it is notable that judges do often recuse themselves when a perception of conflict exists.

This does not make them bad, or biased, or anything else really. It means they recognize that, even if they were to render a fully neutral judgment, certain decisions might “appear” tainted based on some other factor. Justice Stack will certainly understand this concept, and I hope will not take my comments as personal in any way.

He has decided that this is not the case currently, as have the political parties, and that is not only perfectly acceptable, but good to have on record.

One point I would like to make is that we will likely see partisan wrangling of some sort in the future regarding these matters of both the electoral boundary commission (EBC) and the upcoming election, because the parties involved have different goals.

It remains unclear if or how anyone will attack the work that the EBC does, or on what basis. That doesn’t mean any of this will matter, but my original comments were simply an attempt to foresee that it might.

Commenting in the media is difficult when points cannot be expanded upon, as is the case here (not meant as a rebuke of any journalists — simply the medium used).

My broad point was that, given what I personally see as a flawed EBC process, in which a multipartisan process is used rather than an independent process, the fact that the person chosen to moderate, and cast deciding votes, has a recent record of contributions to only one of the parties (this is the last five years prior to being a judge) is relevant.

It would be preferable to have someone without a track record of support to certain sides with such a structure.

I would personally choose a different structure in the first place. Kelly Blidook St. John’s