Victoria Pearman Appointed As Ombudsman
Government House has announced the appointment of lawyer Victoria Pearman as the next Ombudsman. Ms Pearman will succeed Ms Arlene Brock, whose term of office will finish on 31 January 2014.
Governor George Fergusson said: “I am delighted that Ms Pearman has accepted this role. The Ombudsman is a fundamentally important part of ensuring good governance, giving the individual a fair means of resolving problems which may crop up in dealing with the public service – and where necessary holding systems to account. Ms Pearman has a distinguished record of advocacy, mentoring and independence. She is highly qualified for the job’s challenges and responsibilities.
“Ms Brock has been a remarkable and impressive Ombudsman, for which I am extremely grateful. Not only has she established the role in Bermuda and achieved widespread respect for the office here. But she has earned high regard among the wider Ombudsman community in the Commonwealth and beyond, gaining respect for Bermuda as well. “
The appointment of Ombudsman is made by the Governor under section 93A of the Bermuda Constitution Order. Before making the appointment, in which he was advised by a panel chaired by the Deputy Governor, the Governor is required to consult the Premier and Leader of the Opposition.
Ms Victoria Pearman graduated in Law from the London School of Economics and was called to the Bermuda Bar on 19 May 1993. She established Juris Law Chambers in 1998 and was appointed to the Senate in 2001, serving for a period as Junior Minister of Education.
Read More About
Comments (50)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Articles that link to this one:
- Ombudsman Releases Full Report For 2013 | Bernews.com | July 1, 2014
Big shoes to fill.
No doubt she can handle it!
Great choice, glad to see a Bermudian selected in this post. Congrats to Ms. Pearman, I am sure she will do well.
Hahaha…. Right on time Betty. Knew you won’t disappoint.
This is wrong on so many different levels – - – it is hard to stomach. The office of the Ombudsman has been tainted by this appointment.
Please explain.
It allege she’s a big time peee L peeee.
And?
No.
Q
Care to elaborate?
No.
Next question.
Q
Explain why you feel this is wrong! And you said “on so many different levels..” What are you talking about? To make a statement like that without explanation can be seen to be a bit cowardly, in my opinion.
Former PLP Senator?
The Hon Randy Horton,is a former P.L.P minister, and he is doing a damn good job as the speaker of the house, so what the heck is your point.
Yes,apparently so, & that is a very pleasant surprise. These are very important positions for impartiality.
In a perfect world none of these positions would be held by anyone with any political affiliations. But it is not so we have to work with what is available. Sometimes political baggage comes with the appointee. Hopefully integrity outweighs political loyalty.
One cannot help but wonder how loud the howls of protest would be if an OBA stalwart was appointed to such a position under a PLP Government. They Bettys, in all of their forms, would be going absolutely wooley.
I don’t have to explain and I can respect your opinion (but that doesn’t mean I agree with it).
Q
Why start now? You never have before.
Who is talking to you? Amazing how you pop up on my post? Lol knock yourself out if you want – don’t care about your opinion in this matter.
No one was. That’s not a stipulation for posting.
No one HAS to be talking to me. You seem to think they do. Well, when it comes to me anyway. This isn’t the first time that you’ve implied that I shouldn’t post if no one was talking to me.
My point still stands.
As for you caring about my opinion… you DO get that that’s not why I post, right?
So explain your original post on this thread? Was it to enlighten us about a topic or issue? Was it to contribute to the discussion on the topic of the article?
No – it was an attack – the same form of discourse that you repeatedly chastise others for on this blog.
But I’m sure that’s not you see it – - (there lies the opinion)
If you’re against it, i’m definitely for it. I think she’s a good choice, and wish her well. She does have big shoes to fill.
It is obvious to me that you and others like you on this blog have nothing better to do than attack those who oppose you on a regular basis.
You don’t know her – you don’t know of her character – - you don’t know of her qualifications or background
JUST BECAUSE I DON’T APPROVE, you are all for it!! That says a lot about you and your opinion.
Q
No. That’s you and yours that do that.
Again with the us against them crap? Mike you are better than that.
Says the guy who brought up the “us against them crap” in his post with “you and others like you”.
I guess it truly is only ok when you do it.
I may be better than that. But you obviously aren’t.
Nope – - not when I am attacked by you and others for stating my opinion and people post replies which start like this –
“Sandy Bottom says:
January 10, 2014 at 5:49 pm
If you’re against it, i’m definitely for it”
But that’s ok, right?
I have clearly explained why I disagree with you.
I actually know her fairly well. I have some experience of interacting with her professionally. I have also interacted with her on a social basis. I know she was a PLP senator, and I doubt that I agree with her politics very often. But I happen to think she is honest and very competent. I also think she will want to be regarded in the way the incumbent Ombudsman is viewed. Those are the reasons why, in this case, I disagree with you, Question.
So you’re wrong again, this time about me.
The fact that you “don’t approve” and won’t say why is just typical.
SB:
Your credibility is nil after your first post earlier on this blog where you attacked before you even made your point.
But let me speak to your post here –
I too know her – not fairly well, but well. I too have interacted with her on both a professional and social level; however, I do not believe her to be…..(competent – very).
Here’s the point SB – - you can disagree with me – I have no problem with that.
What I find laughable is your need to attack when you state your opinion – - there is no fact or method to be found here – - that’s what funny to me.
You and others state your opinion and when others object, you get defensive and disrespectful. I only attack when provoked.
If you think I’m wrong, that’s cool – - and I can respect that – but never think I will allow you and others to stop me from stating my opinion – that will never happen.
You’re the one who said the “office of the ombudsman has been tainted by this appointment”. We will see, won’t we.
Exactly – - my opinion – and you damn sure we will.
Go sit on your soap box and stick a sock in it, Ms. Pearman is more then qualified, and I do believe congratulations is in order.
If you think she is not qualified for the position, why isn’t your sorry a$$ in the position, it is a sickening thing to see people belly ache when one of our own is promoted, but let it be a person of a different persuasion it seems to be o.k.
Ms Pearman will do well, and I am sure she wont let any political affiliation or influence get in her way. All the best in your new position and well deserved.
Santucci:
I never said she was unqualified for the position, but I disagree that congratulations are in order.
I am not qualified for the position – if I was, I would have the position thus your point is mute. For the record, my objection to Ms. Pearman is not based on race, sex, or any other discriminatory issue, so that point is mute.
My objection is based on your third and final paragraph above – - “she won’t let any political affiliation or influence get in her way.” I don’t care what political affiliation she has – - never did. However, the concept of influence is part of my issue.
My final statement her explains my objection clearly (so for those who have a problem with my opinion please pay attention) – - The Ombudsman should be a person of honesty, integrity, and high moral fibre – - Ms. Pearman is none of these things and has proven that point time and time again.
Is that clear enough for you?
Q
“…moral fibre? You need to get over it, Question.
You take a particularly toxic swipe at Ms Pearman, under the cloak of anonymity, you state categorically why you strongly disapprove and show your inflexibility as you tell this forum about her lack of “…moral fibre,” amongst other criticisms. Where is your appointment from God?
Please stay out of individuals’ private lives, and look transparently at their performance in public office. If, and I sincerely doubt it, Ms Pearman transgresses in public office, then you have every right to be bluntly critical, BUT do not pay us the ultimate disrespect of making such as tall order of toxic criticism whilst you hide who you are.
Remember women have a past, men have experience. Your disagreement may have nothing to do with gender, but would you be arguing about, “…moral fibre” if this appointment went to a man?
And my point to Triangle Drifter, I remember advocating for Mr Horton to take the position as Speaker of the House, there was unbelievable opposition to this offer to him, even from his very own political party. The distinguishing political issue here, opposition politicians who qualify for very senior positions in government demonstrate the politics of neutrality otherwise they run the risk of tarnishing and sidelining their own career – inside and outside of politics. And this is quite different from the ruling party (OBA) advocating on behalf of an appointment like the DPP position, here the terms are very, very different.
London, England
Val:
God and I talk on a regular basis but he did not appointment me – - correct.
I stated my opinion – - you have every right to agree or disagree – - I have no problem with it either way.
Your opinion is just that – yours – - I don’t have to agree – - thus speak to your heart’s content.
Let’s get real here. Hon. Randy Horton’s ONLY reasons for taking the position of Speaker were so he would receive a nice Govt. paycheck and expense account for the next 5 years and his Parliamentary pension would be way better compared to continuing as an opposition backbencher. He was completely enticed by the $$$$$$.
Question, any candidate for any job has a political opinion. Lawyers, judges, doctors, teachers, everybody. A person should not be excluded purely for their opinions, as long as those opinions have no impact on how they do their job. If the candidate has integrity and honesty, that should be good enough.
It is to everyone’s credit that someone with a PLP background gets appointed while the OBA is the government.
Point is *moot*
Carry on.
You should probably be careful there since without justification, the statement is borderline libelous.
Congratulations!
Much success!
She will be watched closely I am sure. She has big shoes to fill.
Vicki is marvelous under pressure, that is when she is at her best. so let um watch, them may just learn something from a trail blazer.
Just imagine the pressure that the “PLP hierarchy” are going to put on her as far as “what to investigate” and what to NOT to….
congrats. now lets get to work on lots of un-finished business from the recent past and continue the good work of your predecessor.
So much for looking into the past, she was part of the team that put Bermuda in this mess.
I didn’t think it was possible for the Governor to appoint a Bermudian to any post. Miss Pearman is an excellent pick for this job. The only thing I don’t like about it is the fact that we will be losing one damn fine lawyer.
Looks like there will be no Ombudsman investigations of the C of H, WEDCO, BLDC, BHC, new hospital or anything to do with former PLP Govt.. Suspect we may see Jetgate, Tourism Authority, Capital G sale, gaming referendum, citizenship for sale and any other investigations “directed by PLP hierarchy to a former PLP Senator”.
Congratulations Ms. Pearman!! Best wishes in your new post!!
Surely the Governor could have found another highly educated and experienced lawyer who was not at one time appointed a Senator by a political party. How can this person possibly be unbiased. This is a tainted appointment and does not bode well for the future credibility of the Office of the Ombudsman. Bermudians should be very concerned.
Anyone who chooses to vote has a political opinion! That said congratulations Ms. Pearman, I expect that you will serve Bermuda well.
How come I didn’t hear all this political talk when James Jardine was appointed to the Senate. He is a former UBP Chairperson; meaning that he has political ties to the current Government (pun intended)! As an INDEPENDENT Senator he is expected to execute his duties professionally and with integrity. Although, one must note that he has never voted against the OBA Government to date!
Is there really any difference between Ms. Pearman and Mr. Jardine? Unless of course the obvious one!