More than half a dozen police officers attended the headquarters of the Home Affairs Ministry in response to a citizen’s request for Government’s policy document on abolition of term limits yesterday afternoon.But acting Home Affairs Minister Michael Dunkley stepped in to resolve the situation by promising Jonathan Starling that the document would be released to him.Government last night confirmed the incident and said Mr Starling’s request to have access to certain internal documents on term limit policy, and his request would be considered by Minister Michael Fahy when he returns to the Island [see separate story on page 10].In a blow-by-blow account of his “direct action initiative” at Sofia House — the Ministry’s Church Street headquarters — Mr Starling said he was seeking clarity about Sen Fahy’s statement on ‘policing’ the internet and to ensure the release of the term limit document.But the Minister is off Island and Mr Starling decided to concentrate on the document’s release.Government abolished term limits last week sparking claims that it had not consulted with organised labour. But the Home Affairs Ministry then provided the media a copy of an e-mail seeking feedback from labour representatives and other stakeholders to its “Impact Assessment on the Elimination of Term Limits”.The email to the stakeholders made it clear that the document was not to be shared with the media.Mr Starling said that before going to the Ministry he had made inquires about how to access the document through Public Access to Information legislation and was told that the legislation was “essentially dormant”.“I decided at this point that I would go to the Ministry and I would not leave until I had either a commitment on their part to release the policy review, or a written statement on why the policy review would not be made public.”Staff at the Ministry offered to make an appointment for Mr Starling to discuss the matter with Permanent Secretary Cherie Whitter who was at lunch when he arrived.“I agreed to this, but insisted that I would wait until the PS returned from lunch and ensure she understood my position. On her return, I provided my contact information with her, but insisted I would not leave until given a written statement about whether or not the policy review could be released, and if not, why not, or a written statement of when the appointment would be.“The PS refused to give me either, and I insisted on staying in the Ministry until either of the above was forthcoming. I was presented with a written statement confirming that she had met with me, and taken my details for an appointment, but not the details of an appointment itself.“I sat in the waiting area at the front, reading a paper. She (Ms Whitter) informed me that if I did not leave promptly that security would be called. I repeated my earlier position.“Some time later, the police arrived. There were at least seven police who responded, four in fluorescent jackets, and three additional in black vests. I believe there were more police, possibly up to nine, but as I was somewhat distracted by their arrival I cannot be sure.“I took a picture of the first four police as they arrived, but was unable to take further photos.“I was approached by two officers, while the rest stood behind them. They asked me what I was doing, and I told them that I was waiting for a written statement concerning my freedom of information request. They asked me some additional questions which seemed irrelevant to the matter at hand. I distinctly remember them being particularly interested in where I was employed.“I was informed by one officer that if I did not leave immediately that I would be arrested. I asked for clarification on what legal basis I would be arrested for simply sitting quietly in a waiting room of a public ministry awaiting a written statement.”The attending officers told Mr Starling that he would be arrested under the Summary Offences Act for obstruction of business, he reported.“I pointed out that I was in no way obstructing the civil servants from their business, any more than the coat rack or empty seats also in the waiting room.“I admit I also noted that it seemed a tad over the top to send at least seven police officers to deal with this issue, as it seemed that their skills would be better served elsewhere, and that one or two officers would have been sufficient for this incident.“As I was about to be arrested, Minister Dunkley arrived and asked to speak with me privately. I insisted on a police officer being present to take notes and as a witness, and once this was agreed, I agreed to speak with the Minister in the boardroom.”Mr Dunkley then promised Mr Starling that the policy review would be given to him if he ended his “sit-down”“Taking the Minister by his word, I complied with this deal, and was promptly escorted out of the Ministry and building.”Mr Starling stressed that the civil servants and the police were polite and professional.“I understand they were simply doing their job, and I hope they also understand that I was just doing my job as an active citizen in the democratic process,” he said.“I would also like to note that at the moment I have a neutral position concerning term limits and their continuation or abolishment.“My concern, however, was that they were abolished despite the OBA stating as a pre-election pledge that they would suspend term limits for two years and engage in a thorough review involving consultation with key stakeholders. As a member of the public I consider myself a key stakeholder, and feel that I was not consulted.”He added that the document which helped Government decide on abolishing the term limits policy should be in the public domain, “if for nothing else it would serve to dispel some of the myths concerning the term limits policy, and ensure that the Government is held accountable for their actions.“It would serve as an educational document in this sense. There are consequences when a government breaks its promises, and the failure to consult with all stakeholders, including the wider public, especially when it involves a serious breach of the public's trust (in terms of their pre-election pledge) warrants the release of this policy review to the public.“I would also like to point out that at no time did I, in my belief, engage in any violent conduct. My 'protest' consisted of discussing the issue with the civil servants in a friendly manner and sitting in a waiting room quietly reading an article on urban planning.”Mr Starling said that although PATI is not operational he had hoped that Government would act in the spirit of PATI and “would be more open to the public release of such a policy review.“I encourage other citizens to also engage in peaceful acts calling for the Government to move swiftly in terms of PATI in general, and in releasing this policy review in particular.“I will be holding Minister Dunkley — and, by extension, the OBA Government — to its word on the release of this policy review.”