People's National Party (PNP) members of the Hanover Parish Council can't just say that they were not involved and deem themselves absolved of responsibility. If they are serious, they deeply misunderstand their jobs and have no place as the people's representatives.

The issue at hand, of course, is the fallout from the resignation this week of Lester Crooks, the council's chairman, a position which also made him Mayor of Lucea, the Hanover capital. He was faced with an embarrassing conflict of interest and pressured by the top brass of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) to step down.

Apart from his former post as head of the Hanover local govern-ment authority, Mr. Crooks runs a trucking company, which has benefited from contracts from the Spanish Fiesta Group, which is building a major hotel in his parish. The council over which Mr. Crooks presided has regulatory power over many of the things which companies like Fiesta have to do in the course of business.

In the case of Fiesta, specifically, this included approving building permits, a process for which there is a fee. The local government of this poor Jamaican parish agreed to a 25 per cent reduction on those fees, saving a major Spanish transnational firm over $10 million. Mayor Crooks was held responsible.

Whether or not Mr. Crooks was directly involved in the decision making, he had to be aware of the discount. And he should have known and been sensitive to the fact that, given his private business relationship with Fiesta, there was a conflict of interest - both real and apparent. He should also have been aware that in some of his actions, he appeared more like a promoter of the interests of Fiesta than a public official, seeking to protect the resources of the people he represents. That, however, could have been merely his eagerness to get a major investment in his parish.

But whatever may have been the wrongs of former Mayor Crooks and the JLP, Messrs. Hill, Miller and Samuels of the PNP can't just do a Pontius Pilate and assume themselves cleared. These three gentlemen claim not to have been at committee meetings at which the decision to discount the building fees was taken. Nor was the decision brought to the full council for ratification.

This, indeed, may have been the case. But we would be surprised if the PNP councillors were unaware when these conclusions were being reached nearly a year after, and later when the undertakings were being executed.

If they knew and did and said nothing about it - and not a whispering campaign, but objected openly if they felt the decision to be wrong - then they do not deserve to represent their divisions on the parish council. If they did not know and were ignorant, they are not the kinds of representatives deserved by their constituents.

No amount of hand-washing will clear the failures.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.