THE National Assembly has in recent times attracted almost unprecedented attention. One such instance was on the occasion of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) approval of the appointments of the staff of the Auditor-General’s Office. One of the foci of attention was the conduct of the meeting by the chairperson, Mr. Carl Greenidge. There are those who questioned his actions and knowledge, as chairperson. What is the crux of the matter? Was Mr Greenidge entitled to two votes? One as an ordinary member of the committee and another, as chairperson, to be used in the instance of an equality of votes (tie)?
The answer to the question is to be found in the Standing Orders of the Assembly. What do the Standing Orders state?
Standing Order 70 (2) lists the PAC as a sessional select committee.
Standing Order 74 (3) Division in Select Committees states: “….The Chairman shall not have an original vote but in the event of an equality of votes he shall give a casting vote.”
When this Standing Order is applied to the sitting of the PAC on the occasion of the approval of the staff of the Auditor-General’s Office, the facts are as follows:

1. The PAC comprises nine (9) members. Four from the government and five from the opposition.
2. On the day in question eight (8) members were in attendance. Four from each side.
3. Mr Greenidge was presiding as chairperson and was  entitled to vote only if there was an equality of votes (tie), after the other members would have voted.
4. When the other members voted the four government members voted for the appointments. The three opposition members voted against. There was no equality of votes hence the chairperson could not vote.
The appointments were therefore a done deal. The absence of one opposition member made it a done deal.
Anyone who explains the events differently is either unaware of the facts and/or the application of the Standing Orders or is malicious. Any such person needs to be educated or sanctioned for wrongdoing.