Jerome Kennedy - Wrongfully elected?

Goodbye Jerome? - you have left your mark on the political landscape of our province.

Yours was a reign of arrogance, belligerence, intolerance, and prejudice.

Prior to becoming a "politician" - Mr. Kennedy was a defense lawyer of note - fighting against injustices, protecting the wrongfully accused. The lion of of a lawyer standing between them and the zealous prosecution, them and sloppy police work and more between them and the judges. Don't forget how Kennedy once described the judiciary: "It's the trial judges, some of whom don't know what they are doing" and "Part of it is as a result of political appointments. Part of this is as a result of intentional or unintentional biases."

Well what has Kennedy become?

I can certainly say that he acted on some policy issues where he did not know what he was doing and part of that was because of political influence. He certainly has biases whether intentional or unintentional.

He has punished people or threatened to punish people without any fair hearing or process.

With respect to those who have plead guilty of violence - who are sexual offenders - I say that Minister Kennedy had no problem celebrating such a criminal because he was successful in a hockey game. he stood in the House of Assembly, our Legislature and said: "The CeeBees rode stellar goaltending by Mark Yetman and were led on and off the ice by their captain, veteran Keith Delaney, and assistant captains, Mike Dyke, Donnie Gosse, and Robert Slaney."

So when Jerome Kennedy was fortunate enough to be elected and sit as an MHA and as a Minister - how did he handle his new found power?

Did he try to bring what he learned as a lawyer fighting for the innocent and challenging how the judges handled the power they had?

No he became what he complained about and fought against. His power was so intoxicating he lost sight of all the little people. He condemned without ever meeting. He issued threats to small business owners and professionals to get his way. He was vindictive toward critics of his government. He was a bully. Then hockey prowess trumped the rights of women who were violated by a person - he chose to celebrate.

Poetic justice is probably more suited to our Mr. Kennedy.

Was he able to take constructive criticism? No.
Was he able to use his power wisely, justly, and with humility? Yes - however he chose not to.
Did he practice what he preached when given the opportunity? No
Did he treat all citizens fairly and without prejudice? No
Did he become a political hack? Yes

All that was done in his previous career has been greatly diminished by his approach when holding a powerful position.

Is it time for him to go? It was - for me - the day after his first appointment to Cabinet.

How he looked up into the galleries of the House of Assembly and mocked ordinary citizens who were there to fight for what was right. That's the last memory I have of Jerome Kennedy - for after that - there was no need to listen to anything else he said.

I leave the allegedly departing - student of poetry - Minister with the following:

Wrongfully Elected

His potential was great, his ability - exceptional, his timing ideal 

He however squandered, underperformed, abused political power.

Contempt became his noun, as he sentenced others without

trial, representation, or financial clout to fight him.

His act of despising defined him, clouded him, 

ruled him.

Injustice he bemoaned became justice he delivered,

power he protested became the legislative hammer he wielded.

Society should hold no favorites; therefore society was unnecessary.

Brave when times were celebraTORY when actions could be retaliaTORY words deprecaTORY - cowardice abound when polls are in the lavaTORY, or a rogaTory process was replaced with the number 29; a bill of ill repute. 

So great was his opportunity that his deeds seem so feeble.

This adieu is doubly sad; that when there he retreated and when retreating is irrelevant.

The mark left is big - broad - bold - but bush-league. An oxymoron? No - for when so much was possible yet so little realized - the resulting scar can be profound.

Is Muskrat Falls development safe? Ask Minister Davis

A few days ago - Minister of Transportation and Works - Paul Davis - compared engineers to lawyers - put ten of them in a room and you get 10 different opinions. This was in response to a question by the talk-show host basically asking what or when we can determine if work needs to be done on infrastructure such as roads and bridges.

That's a scary and misguided thought and it makes me wonder what Paul Davis really knows about his portfolio and if his knowledge is that weak - what exactly his "officials" can get away with.

If engineers - particularly Civil Engineers - are likely to fail on structures at the same frequency as lawyers lose in Court - I recommend we all stay off the roads and bridges.

Whether a road or bridge is need of immediate repair is not a hit and miss sort of thing. How about water resources engineering? Should we expect the engineers doing hydro dams or predicting water flow to tell us we have a 50-50 chance of being successful?

How about structures like hospitals and schools? Should we expect our engineers to tell us - if it falls down - no worry - we can appeal?

Using engineers "opinions" as an excuse for ignoring old and failing infrastructure is ridiculous - using engineers "opinions" as an excuse for replacing infrastructure that is being stressed by increased usage the structure was not designed to take is outrageous. If Minister Davis was telling the truth - please provide the numerous and differing opinions on any one infrastructure in the province.

If we listen to Minister Davis - we have to believe that 10 engineers went out to look at a road or culvert or bridge - and 10 of them came back with different opinions on the safety of the structure.

An engineer - if asked professionally - whether or not a road or bridge is safe - must be as accurate as a brain surgeon.

Are there incompetent surgeons and engineers? Yes. Have there been instances of catastrophic failure in engineering? Yes. Have there been instances where an engineer was paid to falsify a report? Yes. Have there been instances where an engineer feels pressure by an employer to deliver information the employer wants to hear - accurate or not? Yes. Thankfully these engineers represent a very small percentage within the profession and although catastrophes have occurred - for the most part we live, work, and traverse over very safe structures.

What I want to know from Minister Davis is what road and bridge structures his departmental engineers studies and how many of them came back with differing opinions and whether or not engineers we employ fall among the examples listed above? 

The Dunderdale government has proven that it keeps getting reports done until it gets the report it likes. While unethical and despicable - up until now - it has not caused me great concern regarding safety - but rather more concern about debt, deficits, and wasting taxpayer dollars.

I am deeply concerned about the comment made by Minister Davis. Is he implying by ignorance that we have engineers employed that are more interested in serving their political masters than serving their profession and through that public safety? Is he implying that engineering work on Muskrat Falls may be in question - as the engineers might be giving the go ahead on dams and structures simply because the politicians want it to proceed?

Lawyers and Engineers are expected to give expert opinions - however the guarantees on the opinions are very different. Convincing a judge or jury of your client's position is one thing - guaranteeing the safety of infrastructure is another. Proving or not proving a defendant guilty is one thing - but guaranteeing that a hospital won't collapse is another.

Question for Minister Davis and the rest of Cabinet: Is there any engineer questioning any part of the Muskrat Falls development? Is there any engineer offering an opinion that the dam or other hydro structures may be unsafe? If so - release that information. Based on what Minister Davis said on roads and bridges; we may have other opinions on whether or not Muskrat Falls can be developed as currently engineered.

Is this the case - or did Minister Davis utter nonsense when faced with a basic question that he had no ability to answer?