Open mike: In defence of Walton Brown

jake writes:

Having read the recent article "Brown on Brown" by Christian Dunleavey on his Politics.bm site about Walton Brown I was forced to consider if we were talking about the same man. The explicit comment was on disclosure, but the implicit one speaks to honesty.

Writes Christian:

"I'm not disputing the results of today's Royal Gazette poll, but don't you think there is an obligation to disclose that the polling is conducted by Research Innovations, owned and operated by Premier Brown's cousin Walton Brown, who is rumored to have been involved in Dr. Brown's successful leadership challenge (present at Dr. Brown's kick-off speech and swearing in weeks later at Government House) of Premier Alex Scott, launched hot on the heels of a Research Innovations poll with sky high tourism approval ratings?

...I'm not surprised by the poll results. A bounce was expected, but surely there needs to be some disclosure of these facts."

Walton has been a long time campaigner for Independence and also runs the Research Innovations polls for the Royal Gazette. I think more than anybody though, he is a person of quantitative and qualitative integrity. His polls have consistently shown that Bermudians do not favor independence. He has also attacked the BIC for intellectual dishonesty for failing to include the UBP submission, the obviously erroneous claim that no country had decided the issue by referendum and for dressing up opinion as fact. All positions demonstrating honesty, not blind support for independence.

Bermuda should not be afraid of open debate and we should engage in it vigorously. We should also engage each other with truth and not be afraid to confront those who purport to support our position, but who do so with lies.

Walton Brown demonstrates that 'disclosure' is trumped by integrity.

Comments

[The Christian Fist of Gratitude on 29.11.06 at 14:15]

I'm not sure I get the significance of Waltons comments today, was he acting as spokesman for his boy or has he had a sudden Pauline conversion and he's trying to wash his hands of the BIC "report".

[SmokingGun on 29.11.06 at 14:32]

Jake - just one question. Why has he all of a sudden started coming out bashing the BIC report and it's producers and throwing them all under the bus? Why didn't he do that along time ago? Or did he and I just never heard about it.

It seems to me more and more often that either the PLP is totally split over how things should be done or Ewart Brown is pulling out all stops and using all of his cronies/relatives to spin everything so it looks like he's leading the way.

I have a friend who's got a bad habit of stating the obvious in such a way in an attempt to sound original. Every once and a while I have to shut him up by saying: "Wow, that's such a great idea. I wonder why no-one else ever thought of that?" I guess the 14,000 people who signed up for the referendum must feel the same way.

[Christian on 29.11.06 at 14:36]

Jake,

Nice to hear from you again.

Firstly, I've never met Walton.

Secondly, I don't disagree that his polls have held up to scrutiny and report opposing views to his own at times. In fact, I've suggested to some UBP friends that they save the $$ they spend on polling and spend 75c on a paper every few months.

Regardless, disclosure of this information is relevant and warranted, whether you want to spin my comments or not. It's even more relevant now that the pollster's cousin is much more the subject of his polls.

Pollsters in the US or elsewhere would have their 'allegiances', political, financial or familial disclosed by the papers who carried them.

This is an issue of process and disclosure. Something we have far too little of in Bermuda politics.

Bermuda's a small place. Conflicts crop up all the time and are unavoidable. So you put the info on the table and let people judge for themselves.

Best regards,

Christian

[RedOnion on 29.11.06 at 16:38]

I have always found Walton Brown to be a man of integrity. One bright star amongst many tarnished stars. He has always appeared to me to be fair and honest with publishing his poll results even if they do not support a cause he personally believes in.

If he were to run for political office he would be a shoo-in! Honesty and Integrity would get my vote every time.

[J Starling on 29.11.06 at 18:02]

These polls are based on statistics. While I agree that statistics may be interpreted quite fluidly, I am also of the understanding that it is because of this, and Walton Browns wish to be impartial, he mostly provides only the raw data and final numbers WITHOUT interpreting them. As such it would be the Gazette that would be accused of any bias and not Brown. I am sure Walton Brown would be more than willing to share his raw data with anyone who asked him because of questions of his impartiality. And what would be his motivation to skew the results? Wouldn't that totally destroy his business? As Limey has stated above, Brown's own polls have often been contradictory to Brown's own political beliefs. While it might have been more kosher to state the company behind the polls, it is a pedantic one, especially as this argument has been argued to death before. I would have expected better of MR. Dunleavy and the UBP than this.

[Phil on 29.11.06 at 18:40]

Jonathan

As Limey has stated above

The comments above were made by jake.

[Tiger Bay on 29.11.06 at 21:23]

I think that Walton is making a clean break from the amateur hour approaches of Alex Scott. Doc Hollywood has already indicated his approach will be much different; and don't believe for a second that it's on the back burner. It's his burning ambition.

[Sour Grapes on 29.11.06 at 21:48]

"While it might have been more kosher to state the company behind the polls, it is a pedantic one, especially as this argument has been argued to death before. I would have expected better of MR. Dunleavy and the UBP than this."

Disclosure isn't the objective for Dunleavy. It is casting a cloud of doubt over the polls no matter how often Brown has proven that his research is trustworthy. This would also be ignoring the UBP/conservative lens his results are filtered through via the RG. Dunleavy and the UBP are just smarting as the future of the UBP looks bleaker by the second. I kind of feel sorry for them as they continue to grasp at straws.

[Lost in Flatts on 30.11.06 at 07:48]

"Disclosure isn't the objective for Dunleavy. It is casting a cloud of doubt over the polls no matter how often Brown has proven that his research is trustworthy. This would also be ignoring the UBP/conservative lens his results are filtered through via the RG. Dunleavy and the UBP are just smarting as the future of the UBP looks bleaker by the second. I kind of feel sorry for them as they continue to grasp at straws."

Those bastards, are they playing at politics again? I can't stand when politicians do that. It's a good thing the PLP don't resort to meaningless rhetoric and unethical schemes to try and sway the voter by misleading them.
*offers hand to help down from high horse*

On the topic though, I think Christian's point, regardless of how it is interpretted is completely valid. Does the poll reader not have a right to know where the poll came from? Of course they do. And to J Starling et al claiming polls are pure stats devoid of any bias, read up on how changing questions by one word, changing the tone of the questioner, even their accent can completely turn poll results on their head. Everything's biased, therefore the reader should be able to know whose work they are reading so they can better understand the validity of the data.

[Sour Grapes on 30.11.06 at 09:11]

"Does the poll reader not have a right to know where the poll came from? Of course they do."

Of course they do. But Dunleavy and your question implies that the pollster isn't mentioned for purposes of disguising bias. It's a crafty way of saying don't trust the stats, which is nothing short of dishonest. If it was Rolfe Commissiong, he might have a point. But attacking Walton Brown in this way, despite his clear record, is filthy politics. Chalk up another reason not to vote UBP.

[jake on 30.11.06 at 10:56]

Hello Christian,

You may call it my spin on your comments, but I think the slant was accurate. I've never seen you ask for disclosure on the Gibbons family and their role, nor on any of the UBP members. In a community as small as Bermuda we all know of conflicts but how difficult it would be if every sentence was punctuated with the "...cousin of x, father of y, brother of z" tagline.

I am not sure why the fact that Ewart Brown's brother has done well at the Bank (and the other as head of the Fire Service, for full disclosure - maybe the amalgamation is all some secret plot to take over emergency fire care) would create such problems for you.

Here's a question: is any member of the UBP an owner, director or senior person in the local media? Should we have an "owned by people who are members of the UBP" tagline as well?

Now there's a thought...

Regards,

Jake

[Christian on 30.11.06 at 12:54]

I didn't think, and don't think, Walton Brown is a member of the PLP? So why are we suddenly talking about "UBP members"?

I'm talking about an independent pollster, who is closely related to the subject of his polls. That doesn't imply manipulation but a real potential for bias. The relationship is worthy of disclosure.

[Casual Observor on 30.11.06 at 13:10]

Well said Jake.

Christian, I think the point is that if we all were to offer full disclosure, there would be some pretty lengthy taglines.

Personally, I see no need for Walton Brown operating as an independent entity to have to disclose his relationship to the Premier, particularly when the integrity of the polls is not being called into question.

[Christian on 30.11.06 at 14:00]

I guess I'm bound to have a hard time convinving people under pen names of the merits of full disclosure. Nonetheless I'll make one last attempt before moving on.

I accept this could get taken to an extreme, but I maintain that a pollster's potential conflicts should be disclosed by the publication carrying them, as should potential conflicts for politicians and corporations when funding government initiatives and parties among others.

I don't care what side people are affiliated with. I've argued for a fully functional and enforceable Register of MPs Interests as well, another area of disclosure that is not treated seriously and I'd like to see campaign finance reform in Bermuda.

But for some reason the word disclosure is like kryptonite in this community. I prefer to err on the side of too much than too little. For that I am accused of having 'a problem'. So be it.

[SmokingGun on 30.11.06 at 15:57]

From all of the debate I think this line pretty much sums up how it should be across the board in Bermuda:

"integrity mandates disclosure"

If I were Walton Brown I'd want people to know that I'm doing everything above board and full disclosure allows for that. Not necessarily each time his company questions someone for a poll, just when presenting the results.

Imagine in the USA if all the polling being done on Presidnt Bush was by his own cousin?

Which leads me to wonder why the Royal Gazette doesn't use a different pollster just to keep things clear.

[Sour Grapes on 30.11.06 at 18:07]

Dunleavy questions the man's integrity when he has no reason to - it's pretty dishonest of him. If you have no reason to doubt his data, then what is the merit of discloure? What do you gain, when you are already quite confident that Brown has demonstrated great integrity in his polling (and would be doing himself a great deal of damage if he ever did mess with the results or pass on secrets)? The UBP would obviously gain. Just look at the things Dunleavy questions when he has no need to.

* Would Dr. Brown get inside info on the polls?
* Was Dr. Brown aware of the last poll results prior to publication and early enough to time his leadership campaign around that?
* When Walton Brown interpets results and analyses situations (as he did the leadership challenge), could he not be swayed by his internal biases, best efforts to be objective notwithstanding?

The power of speculation and implied dishonesty is written all over the stick Dunleavy has swung over Brown's head.

As Jake proposes, why stop at blood ties? Let's look into the business and leisure ties of everyone based on actual contribution and personal relationships. Who plays golf together? If we are going to have full disclousure, then let's start with the last 30 years of financial contributions to both political parties. Let's everyone who contributes a single penny to politics be known for the public record.

[SmokingGun on 30.11.06 at 18:33]

Sour Grapes - go for it. I love the idea of full disclosure across the board. Going back 30 years is as good a start as any. I think Christian is pretty much calling for that himself.

The problem lies in the fact that most PLP supporters cannot accept that the members of today's opposition might have very little to do with what was going on 30 years ago. Sure there will be some skeletons rattled but you'd be amazed as to just who's closets make the most noise.

So let's start anew. Full disclosure for all. No more inside deals. Heck, all our politicians got hefty pay raises just a few months ago so no need to pad the accounts anymore... right?

Most importantly - just because someone points out that it might be in the best interest of all to know that someone is related doesn't mean they are suggesting corruption. But if there is a desire to hide the facts that friends & relatives are participating or benefitting from decisions made and contracts offered then yes corruption would be a possible conclusion. Or at the very least, flagrant nepotism.

I for one have never cared for the fact that our politicians are constantly tempted to make decisions that may be swayed by their vested interests or investments. It goes with the territory though as we have such limited resources. There will always be some sort of connection somewhere. However I truly respect any and all individuals who can honestly show they follow the rule that integrity mandates disclosure.

[Casual Observor on 30.11.06 at 21:12]

Sour Grapes, couldn't agree with you more.

Furthermore, if the RG has been using poll information from Research Innovations all this time, why should the change in the country's government suddenly necessitate a disclaimer which would read something to the effect of 'Research Innovations is owned and operated by Walton Brown, first cousin twice removed, to Ewart Brown'!? Particularly if the integrity of the data is not being called into question. What purpose would it serve for Walton Brown to suddenly come out and proclaim his lineage!? Why should he be called out to declare himself an honest man when he is not being challenged on it in the first place!? Christ, suppose Walton Brown doesn't even LIKE his cousin Ewart - what then!?

Mr. Dunleavy is making the assumption that WB would/could potentially be swayed by personal bias through familial ties... suppose the family isn't even that close!? Should we ask WB to provide an affidavit on the nature of his relationship with EB... is EB WB's favourite cousin, or do the two just happen to run into each other every 1o years at the Brown family reunion...!?

[Slowhand on 30.11.06 at 22:28]

"...suppose Walton Brown doesn't even LIKE his cousin Ewart - what then!?"

Suppose he does...

"...suppose the family isn't even that close!?"

Suppose they are...

Either way, if the disclosure is made, what is there to lose? Hmmmm?

[Sour Grapes on 01.12.06 at 02:06]

If Research Innovations polls showed that the UBP had the lead, or that Bermudians were hugely disatisfied with Bermuda, Dunleavy would NOT be questioning Walton Brown's integrity. Let's not act like this is really about disclosure. That is what I find so offensive. The issue has not come up prior to Dr. Brown taking the helm, or before the UBP's chances began looking worse and worse. Why ask now, Dunleavy? Because there are straws to grasp perhaps?

[jake on 01.12.06 at 06:12]

I support Christian's call for a Register of Members for MP's. That's fair game for those in public office.

What galls me is that the suggestion is made that a man should lose his source of income, because of who his cousin is, and what that cousin does.

"SmokingGun: Which leads me to wonder why the Royal Gazette doesn't use a different pollster just to keep things clear."

That is the very conclusion that is reached when disclosure is more prejudicial than probative.

note: Walton Brown is not an MP

[Casual Observor on 01.12.06 at 09:35]

Slowhand -

I understand what you are saying, however, my point is that the integrity of the poll is not being called into question. WB could very well be shooting himself in the foot if he were to make this disclaimer, because then PLP and Brown opponents would be more prone to scrutinize his results and throw around the phrase... "well you know that's his cousin!" everytime they didn't like the way the results look.

And as Jake said, to suggest that you take away somebody's livelihood simply because of a change in leadership is ridiculous and insulting! I can only imagine how WB must feel, particularly when the integrity of the polls is not in question!

[SmokingGun on 01.12.06 at 10:45]

Jake - I can understand seeing it that way but that wasn't the intent. As I said earlier, there is often going to be some sort of connection somewhere in a place as small as Bermuda. Maybe I should have said in addition to using Mr. Brown.

Sour Grapes - I can't speak for Christian Dunleavey but the only reason I start thinking about the importance of full disclosure is when I start hearing people with direct access to the ruling government make serious political commentary in the media about things that are extremely important to the people of Bermuda.

As soon as he opened his mouth bashing the BIC report and it's producers I immediately questioned why now? Is it because his cousin (1st, 2nd or anyone in between) is now running the show?
Where was he when it first came out and why no comments about the integrity of the report back then?

Whilst his cousin is making news on independence, if he chooses to throw his 2¢ in then it's totally legitimate to request full disclosure of his relationship.

[silencedogood on 01.12.06 at 12:03]

If Research Innovations polls showed that the UBP had the lead, or that Bermudians were hugely disatisfied with Bermuda, Dunleavy would NOT be questioning Walton Brown's integrity.
Posted by Sour Grapes on 01.12.06 at 02:06

This is a pretty stupid statement. Sorry.

First, he did not question Walton’s integrity. He merely advocated for disclosure which does not impugn anyone’s credibility. In fact, if Walton’s poll results were opposed to the PLP, disclosure would enhance his credibility.

Second, Walton’s polls show people against independence all the time as you and others noted above. Last time I checked Christian was opposed to independence yet still called for disclosure which pretty much nullifies your argument that he is biased.

The fact you guys have to blow your arguments to extreme proportions by suggesting disclosure requires everyone’s sister’s cousin’s uncle’s half-step-grandchild is very telling. What are you so worried about?

[Phil on 01.12.06 at 13:32]

I interpreted Christian's comments as a criticism of the Royal Gazette, not Walton Brown. The right place to disclose Mr. Brown's relation to Dr. Brown would have been in the RG article, and Mr. Brown had no control over that.

That said, while I agree with the principle of disclosure, and do not agree that integrity obviates the need for it, I'm not particularly upset about the Gazette's omission in this case (because I was already aware of the relationship, and because I think Research Innovations has demonstrated that it can be trusted).

Casual Observor

WB could very well be shooting himself in the foot if he were to make this disclaimer, because then PLP and Brown opponents would be more prone to scrutinize his results and throw around the phrase... "well you know that's his cousin!" everytime they didn't like the way the results look.

Aside from the fact that it would be the RG and not WB who would be making the disclaimer, the whole point of disclosure is that you leave it up to individuals to decide whether the conflict of interest is significant or not. Would some people question poll results they didn't like because of that? Almost certainly. However, that's their prerogative, and it doesn't mean that most people would do so.

[Bermudian on 01.12.06 at 17:09]

This discussion is quite interesting.

It actually occurred to me the other day when I was reading a piece by Mr. Dunleavy that they did not disclose anything about him being a former UBP candidate and/or member of the UBP... Perhaps they have made this disclosure in the past; however, that day (I believe it was his last article) they did not disclose anything. This may be important as not everyone may know who Dunleavy is and when they see his piece in the paper, they may believe that it is some type of neutral assessment of the PLP.

So why isn't he complaining about the RG not disclosing his information as well?

[SmokingGun on 01.12.06 at 18:00]

Actually quite a good point there Bermudian. In the US whenever a Republican or Democratic member of government gets qouted or is published they usually have either (R) or (D) after their name. Maybe we should have the same with a (P) and a (U). Which would be pretty logical for Bermuda as our politics often have a funny odour about them.

[sour Grapes on 01.12.06 at 19:01]

"Sour Grapes - I can't speak for Christian Dunleavey but the only reason I start thinking about the importance of full disclosure is when I start hearing people with direct access to the ruling government make serious political commentary in the media about things that are extremely important to the people of Bermuda."

Why draw the line at the Government? Why not the Opposition as well? And please define "direct access to the ruling government". I could think of 20 people who would have more clout with the Govt. than Walton Brown. I can think of a whole lot more vocal people and organisations with direct ties to the UBP and the interests it supports as well.

[Christian on 01.12.06 at 22:17]

When the Gazette started running my columns they introduced Cal Smith and myself as 'writing from different perspectives' or a phrase along those lines. They also disclosed my party affiliation and that I was a sacrificial lamb candidate in the 2003 election if I recall.

I have a disclosure in the "About" page of my website. I can't remember what the original tagline on my columns was, but over time it was shortened to just www.politics.bm, where the disclosure is.

I did advise the editor when I (briefly) joined the UBP's campaign committee, of which I'm no longer a member.

Fair point though.

[SmokingGun on 02.12.06 at 12:52]

Sour Grapes:

"Why draw the line at the Government? Why not the Opposition as well?"

I don't draw a line because the opposition is part of the government. As much as most PLP supporters may not like to aknowledge that.

"And please define "direct access to the ruling government". I could think of 20 people who would have more clout with the Govt. than Walton Brown."

And if any one of them get's up and makes a position via the media that exposes a bias then I am sure others will rally to request full disclosure.

"I can think of a whole lot more vocal people and organisations with direct ties to the UBP and the interests it supports as well."

So can I. And probably a lot of them post on this web-site.

PS: Full Disclosure: SmokingGun is not affiliated nor has ever been associated with any political party in Bermuda. ;-)

Now Sour Grapes - can you answer the second part of what I was pointing out? Or at least give some insight as to why he might have remained mum on the subject for so long?

BTW: I like your initials.

[SmokingGun on 02.12.06 at 13:30]

Sour Grapes - One more thing regarding party lines and full disclosures and why Bermuda is a "corrupted" economy.

I have intimate knowledge about the practises of certain large businesses in Bermuda that have an effect on all people's daily lives. In the real world, ie; USA/Europe, the way these companies go about their business would likely have them shut down over-night or forced to comply with respected international standards.

The trouble is these companies are run by owners that are both UBP and PLP supporters. If the civil servants were to put pressure on one then the other would surely have to comply. Ultimately nothing happens and the only ones who suffer are the average citizens.

Full disclosure could prove to be very expensive to many on both sides of the equation. Pity we can't just shoot all our politicians and brew up a new batch with little to no ties to old ways. Or at least fire them.

[silencedogood on 02.12.06 at 14:03]

Having a (P) or (U) behind an opinion columnists name is actually a very good idea.

[Sour Grapes on 03.12.06 at 12:09]

Walton Brown has been making politcial commentary on various aspects of Bermuda for YEARS. It doesn't at all strike me as odd that he has waited several months before bashing the BIC report. Maybe as an independence supporter he held out as long as he could. Maybe he thought it practical to give them time to communicate their results. Maybe he was busy doing something else. Who knows! I could just as easily say that he should have been condemning the report before Ewart ran for the Premiership, as he could have hugely undermined Alex Scott's credibility by showing how worthless a job his committee did on the subject. But then had he done that, Scully and Mulder wouldn't have to do their own homework, now would they?

What strikes me as odd is that people are up in arms over Walton Brown making a few comments because he is Ewart's cousin. Did anyone check for UBP membership cards or question UBP voter records when the Bermudians for Referendum group formed? What about their budget? Who is funding their campaign? How about when the other corporate groups spoke out against independence? Did any of you question their ties or mutual interests with the Opposition? Of course you didn't. The assumption is that the ICD is just a bunch of logical chaps with no emotional proclivities to the UK. They are unbiased and know better than we do.

I don't write this as an independence supporter (I'm not at this point in time). I am merely disgusted that people turn a spotlight on Walton Brown, somebody who hasn't attempted to hide a thing, but then turn a blind eye to the gross number of policial entanglements in the UBP, Chamber of Commerce and ICD.

Silencedogood writes the unfathomable, "In fact, if Walton’s poll results were opposed to the PLP, disclosure would enhance his credibility." Now imagine the disclosure note. This data is produced by Research Innovations, a company run by Walton Brown, first cousin of Premier Ewart Brown. So let me get this right. Dunleavy is concerned about the lack of disclosure when the results are pro PLP, and you say that credibility would be enhanced if the results were against the PLP. So essentially. Neither of you have asked what testing methodologies are being used, when that is the only way to really tell if Walton is fudging the numbers. Which can only mean that the accuracy of the data and the integrity of the pollster comes second and third place to the power the results have in determining the outcome of an election. It's like saying that the PLP should have Walton produce reports when things are looking bad, and then get some UBP affiliated research company produce reports when things are looking good. Oh the humanity!

Stop casting aspersions upon Walton Brown until you have a real reason to question his character. Christian Dunleavy is being unfair, and you know he would never have raised the disclousure question if the UBP was 10 points ahead and climbing.

[SmokingGun on 04.12.06 at 14:39]

Sour Grapes - just two things. I think Walton Brown has a company that serves a legitimate purpose in Bermuda and wherever he does business. Unfortunately his cousin is renowned for secret deals, done deals and taking care of friends and family. If he's going to be intimately involved in how Bermudians perceive their present and future and need to make decisions according to his data then he should be expected to disclose his relationship. It's an unfortunate circumstance for sure but nevertheless important.

Bermudians for Referendum on it's own should not matter where the funding comes from. One person One vote separate from a party election shouldn't even be an issue of contention. The fact that the "people" of Bermuda had to even consider setting up BFR is a very sad reflection on our current government in the first place.