Tonight public officer Jerrilyn Bruce is smiling ear to ear, and that’s because she has been vindicated. In a letter from the Public Services Commission dated April twenty, Bruce was informed that she had been found not guilty of all charges. Bruce who has over twenty-years in public service works in the Elections and Boundaries Department, but in 2019 she was targeted and seemingly politically victimized to the point that she was brought on charges. She was accused of misconduct including the sharing of classified information. However, the Public Service Commission found those charges baseless as explained by Bruce’s attorney Darrell Bradley.
Darrell Bradley, Attorney for Jerilyn Bruce: “One of the main things that the Elections and Boundaries Department were alleging against her was breach of confidentiality. And essentially one of the things that they were arguing and pressing was that there was a certain letter which was written by myself and which was read in the Senate, which had to do with this subject matter of the complaint, that that constituted breach of confidentiality. And we pointed out to the Public Services Commission that, that itself cannot found any allegation of breach of confidentiality because that letter is not proprietary of the Department of the Environment that letter was written by Miss Bruce’s attorney. It was a communication that was directed by her attorney to the Chief Elections Officer and the fact that that may have caused anxiety or disquiet within the department cannot be a breach of confidentiality because the letter itself is not the property of the Department of Elections and boundaries. And when you look at the public services regulation it specifically mentions in there what constitutes breach of confidentiality; if you disclose documents, information, any asset or property of the department without authorization then that would be an infraction. So two things we argued in relation to that grant that there’s absolutely no evidence that that letter actually came from Miss Bruce or came from myself in terms of how those people in the Senate got a hand of it. But secondly, even if they got it through her which nobody’s saying that they did and there’s absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever, the letter itself cannot be the basis of any allegation for breach of confidentiality because the letter itself is not confidential information.”
According to Bradley, the charges against Bruce was a form of political victimization.
Darrell Bradley, Attorney for Jerilyn Bruce: “My position right now is that you’ll be no further legal issue. The matter is, I think, at an end. The subject matter of whatever kind of disciplinary actions against her is at an end. Of course we have certain views in relation to why the matter started in the beginning. One of the things that we pointed out is that why is it that this allegation came up at that point. And we talked about issues of victimization, we talked about issues of really the political side trying to intimidate the professional public service side, and we made those arguments quite clear in the hearing itself. And I think those arguments likewise carried a significant amount of persuasion among the Commissioners, I think that it was obvious, at least from our perspective, that, I mean, this is something that should not have been brought to the Elections and Boundaries Commission. It was something that was rather frivolous. It was something that was entirely without merit, you’re dealing with a public officer with excess of 20 years professional service in the public service. One of the things that we really kind of hammered over is why would somebody throw away their career over something as frivolous as this. I think at the end of the day the commissioners saw it for what it was and they dismissed all the allegations against her.”
Hipilito Novelo, Love FM News: In your opinion did it take too long to reach that point last week I think it was April 20 ?
Darrell Bradley, Attorney for Jerilyn Bruce: “Well one of the things that we did point out to the Commission as well is that these things are time limited. I think that the Public Services Commission mentions I believe it’s 90 days, there’s, there’s a time limit in the rules itself that provide from the these matters are commenced when it has to be concluded because of course if you have an allegation like this languishing over a public officer’s head for a significant period of time that would cause anxiety, distress, in some cases, not in the case of Miss Bruce but in some cases the public officer would be on interdiction, and so there is a certain level of urgency in relation to these matters. So of course, we raised the point likewise that this matter was languishing for so many years and it was something that needed to be resolved quickly and it needed to be resolved in favor of my client.”