Saturday 2 March 2013

Simon says "I'm alright Jack!"






Just one week ago I took the conscious decision to state the case for the Parish Honorary system and to explore the potential impact the forthcoming referendum might have on it.

Since then I have been kept rather busy both learning how to use social media to get my message across and also reading the considerable  amount of blog posts and Facebook pages which have already been written to discuss this current attempt to reform the makeup of our Parliament.  I'm sure there are more I have yet to find.  I have also begun to talk to a number of other islanders with direct personal experience of the Parish System and who have a story to tell.

There is, in my humble opinion a lot of misinformation out there on the web  and conjecture masquerading as fact but there is also some well thought out content (on the merits of both option A and option B - I have seen little so far which supports option C - the status quo - which I think most people now acknowledge is not sustainable) which deserves consideration and  further scrutiny.

I've already got enough material for a few postings but I have decided to start with an examination of a posting made by the Constable of St Helier in which he declares his support for the removal of the Constables from the States  and the support of option A.  You can read his posting here


The problem with this posting is that has been seized upon by some as a vindication of their claims that with the Constables no longer in the States "the parish system will go on as before".  After all, surely the Constable of St Helier must be in the best position of all twelve Constables to gauge what the effects of option A on the honorary system would be.


In case there is any doubt, "honorary" means unpaid.  The tradition is giving of one's time in service to the parish without seeking a financial reward. Everyone immediately thinks of the Honorary Police but there are many other positions in the parish administration, from the management of the by-roads to the rating of parish properties which are all done without financial cost on a voluntary basis.  Several honorary positions may attract an honorarium - in the case of Rates Assessors, for example, this is covered by Article 39 of the Rates (Jersey) Law 2005.  It is also customary for parishes to reimburse the holders of honorary positions for any legitimate reasonable expenses they occur in the course of their duties.  I may well have more to say on this but it will have to wait for another blog posting.

So my next task will be to examine exactly how representative of the parish system St Helier really is.  I can demonstrate that in many ways, St Helier has made a special case for itself, sometimes to the detriment of the other 11 parishes. 

It’s not my intention to be personally critical of the present Constable, nor to suggest that the tack St Helier is taking is wrong - I merely contend that in many ways, St Helier is not like other parishes, that it does things differently and therefore that the stance taken by its Constable is not relevant to the other parishes and to the elements of the honorary system.  Indeed, in the past few days we have seen further calls for St Helier to seek city status. This time it is the outgoing president of the Chamber of Commerce who raises the issue, but in the recent past, Simon Crowcroft made similar calls.  He did not, and presumably does not, see St Helier as just one parish amongst twelve.

Let's firstly consider the Hononary Police and specifically the qualification for office which is set out in the Honorary Police (Jersey) Regulations 2005.


Qualification for election
(1)    A person shall only be qualified for election as a member of the Honorary Police of a parish if –
(a)     the person resides in the parish; and
(b)     on the day of nomination as a candidate for election, the person has attained 20 years of age but has not attained 70 years of age.
(2)    The requirement for residence in paragraph (1) is subject to the Parish of St. Helier (Qualifications for Office) (Jersey) Law 1976

So here a special case is made for St Helier.... the relevant Law states....

(1)    Notwithstanding any enactment or customary Law to the contrary, no person being a rate payer in the parish of St. Helier shall be disqualified for being elected to, or being the holder of, any honorary office in the parish of St. Helier, by reason only of the fact that the person does not reside therein.

(2)    For the purposes of this Article, a person shall be deemed to be a rate payer in the parish of St. Helier if the person is on the list of representatives of bodies corporate kept by the Connétable under Article 29(3) of the Rates (Jersey) Law 2005.

So effectively this means that whilst in the other Parishes, an Honorary Police Officer must be resident in the Parish, in St Helier this is not the case.  Being a ratepayer is sufficient.  Furthermore, being the nominated representative  (technically a "mandataire") of a company that is a ratepayer is also sufficient. So effectively, anyone could in theory at least, stand for office in St Helier, they would only need to find a ratepaying company which was willing to register them as a mandataire. 

In a situation where a parish can be fined a considerable amount of money for not being able to find a Centenier (as very nearly happened in St Peter recently) it seems bizarre that the Parish with the largest population is the only one that can look outside its boundaries in order to fill vacancies. 

Of course the head of the honorary system in each Parish is the Constable.  It therefore follows that this is an honorary position and therefore unpaid.

A pertinent question was posed to the Constable of St Helier - "What would you do if you were not successful in being elected a Deputy in scenario "A"? would you still seek the purely honorary position of Constable?"


His reply was interesting..."Yes. But as to whether it would be 'purely honorary' that would be up to the parishioners. I have been doing the parish job unpaid for 11 years, tho obviously I've been paid as a member of the States. If I were to be parish constable but not a deputy under Option A reforms it would be up to the parish to choose whether to pay me anything for continuing to act as unpaid chief executive or to employ someone else to do it; in the latter case I would have the time to do other paid work like teaching."

Firstly, he intimates that he anticipates the question of paying a Constable would be put to the Parishioners.  Then he also hints that in the event that the Parish decides against actually paying the Constable to be Chief Executive, it would be necessary for a new post of Chief Executive to be created.  Presumably this would come with a fairly high salary because there are already a number of high-value posts in the Parish administration and a Chief Executive would normally be the highest paid employee in any organisation - the clue is in the title!  The current pay of a States Member is in the region of £44,000 give or take, but I would imagine that some of the existing Parish directors are earning more than that, quite legitimately - I make no comment about the level of their salaries, merely seek to put the level of remuneration that a Chief Executive post might command into context.

So there is a definite possibility that St Helier would be asked to remunerate its Constable, the head of the Honorary System and that if that was not deemed acceptable, that the “executive functions" of a Constable could be devolved to a new position of Chief Executive, which might be felt to be more acceptable as it would be created outside of the Honorary System.

Either way, it seems the Parishioners of St Helier are to be asked to spend their rate money to cover services that are currently undertaken free of charge on an honorary basis.  Of course, St Helier has a large budget - its latest published accounts show that staff costs (excluding nursing homes and nurseries) are a massive £4,984,591 and that there are in excess of 270 FTE staff (although this figure is not broken down and so includes nursing home and nursery staff).  It is therefore conceivable that another post could be created and remuneration allocated without any undue attention being drawn to the fact.  With such an extensive rate base, the burden on individual ratepayers would be marginal.  Other Parishes, however, could not support such a development.  There are several whose entire annual budget is less than St Helier's staff costs alone.

But if the decision was to pay the Constable, what effect would this have on the remainder of the honorary positions both in St Helier and the other parishes.  As soon as the honorary element is removed for one post it must surely have a knock-on effect on others.  The Chef de Police, for example and the other Centeniers will typically put in a considerable amount of work on behalf of the Parish.  How long would they remain willing to do this if they knew that other previously honorary functions were now being undertaken by a paid executive?  Human nature would seen to suggest that they would not accept this for long. 

St Helier already has special arrangements in place for honorary recruitment as demonstrated above.  It can, therefore, attract any persons from across the Island who are inclined to offer themselves for honorary service.  This is to the detriment of the home parishes of these persons which may also be looking to fill vacant positions.  A potential added incentive of remuneration in St Helier must further tip the balance in favour of that parish.  The majority of the other parishes would not be in a position to remunerate their honorary positions, even if that did not go completely against the spirit of the honorary system in the first place.
  
A further question was posed to Simon Crowcroft "Do you feel the Parish would be at a disadvantage if our Constable was not in the States and yet some others were successful in being elected to the States?"

Again, his answer was interesting and begs further analysis.  “I find it hard to imagine someone standing successfully for the constableship of St Helier and not being returned in the election for Deputy. Actually I think any constable worth their salt can expect to take a seat in the Assembly.”

This answer belies the basic bias of referendum option “A” in favour of St Helier.  The “A Team” is very keen on the numerical deficiencies of option “B”.  This aspect, however is no surprise, it was pointed out specifically by the Electoral Commission but must be seen in the context of providing for the retention of a Parish connection for each and every parish, which is of significant cultural and historical importance and so therefore is deserving of being offered for consideration by the public.

What the “A Team” are not highlighting, of course, is the fact that St Helier is the only parish, under option “A” that is guaranteed to have dedicated representation in the Assembly.  Without the constables providing a directly link, one to every parish, as in option “B”, it is quite possible that some parishes will be totally without representation.  Even if all the Constables decide to stand as deputies in the districts, with the smaller parishes being swamped by sheer weight of numbers, it is unlikely that all will be represented in the Assembly.  However, with the Constable of St Helier having the choice of two “home” districts in which to stand and not having to worry in either case about the voters of other parishes preferring their home-grown candidates, he must surely have an increased chance of being returned as a Deputy.  Furthermore, once elected as a Deputy he would only have to concern himself with St Helier matters – both his electorates would consist solely of St Helier residents.  The Constable of Trinity, for example, if elected separately as a Deputy under option “B” would be responsible for the parish of Trinity as Constable and the District of St Saviour and Trinity, as Deputy.  This is, to quote the Constable of St Helier “quite a thought”!

In conclusion, I have seen nothing so far that shakes my belief that:

Option “C” is not sustainable
Option “A” may be mathematically pure but removes any certain link to 11 of the 12 parishes and will ultimately weaken the honorary system, possibly beyond repair.
Only Option “B” gives every islander an equal number of votes – a major advance over the current situation - and yet still gives the parish system a chance of fair representation - every parish will have a voice - in the States Assembly.

I'm backing Option "B"


13 comments:

  1. I interviewed 3 Constables recently for tomgruchy.blogspot.com and these show a quite wide range of views - so the Constables are not of one voice now. There is no official Constable policy from the Parishes but even under the present system they should - in my view - be paid by their parishioners. The job at St Mary warrants a very small financial reward if anything at all and I feel sure that each Parish would work out an appropriate reward whatever happens after the Referendum.
    The Constable of St Clement (who says they should not serve in the States) has boosted his numbers of honorary Parish officials but the Constable of Grouville (who supports his States job) is having great difficulty recruiting volunteers.
    During the Island Plan discussions several Constables wanted more housing developments in their Parishes specifically for people with Parish connections - the difficulty of recruitment and loss of a tradition was beginning to pinch. That wish is being put into effect yet the Constables are being exempted by Housing from the "Common Gateway" system specifically so that they might choose the future buyers or occupiers. Unfortunately - or fortunately - such Constables will not be able to resist the tide of change - whether they are bankers rather than farmers - or Romanians rather then boys and girls with "old Jersey names" - the mindset of residents cannot be controlled like agri-products.

    Other changes were being considered by two other panels loooking at aspects of Parish admin and voting procedures - so it does not end with the simple A, B or C Referendum.
    The opaque Constables Committee and its lack of public participation or supervision is just another asepct of the Parish or Honorary system that must be examined and reformed - but it clearly could be a useful forum to serve the whole public whether Constables are out or in the States.
    Preferably they will be out under an "Option A" vote but I also think that the 20,000 people with housing quals who do not live in Jersey should be included as part of the electorate too.

    The "international standards" that are much talked of say that absent "nationals" should especially be incluided in Referendums....
    Mike Dun writes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. You are entitled to yours views and I am entitled not to share them. Your statement that the Constables should be paid clearly shows that you have a different understanding of the honorary system to the majority of people that I speak to and takes nothing away from the potential issues I highlight in my posting.

      It is quite probable the Constables hold differing viewpoints on this and other issues and in view of your research I hope you now accept that the myth of a bloc vote is just that - a myth and totally without evidence.

      You are not correct about the Constable of St Clement's stance. He supports Clothier, which removes the Constable's automatic rights to a seat in the States but has stated that he does not support this removal in conjunction with the loss of the other parish representative by the creation of large constituencies.

      I do not share your views on the absent islanders who have housing rights. This is not and cannot be a basis for eligibility to vote. Our system is to link voter registration to residence and the people who live here and contribute are surely the ones who should have a say in our elections.

      Delete
  2. Option B gives us all an equal number of votes, but it results in voters in the smaller parishes (including me!) having a higher level of representation, which cannot be fair.

    Option A should strengthen the parochial, honorary system as the constables would concentrate solely on their parochial affairs. They should meet the parish's deputies on a regular basis to express any parochial concerns, and if they stand for deputy, they should have to convince the electorate that they would be able to devote sufficient time to cope with both roles

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Option B gives everyone the same number of votes for their Deputies and gives every Parish one direct representative. You cannot mix the two roles - they are different. At public meetings, the Electoral Commission referred to them as apples and pears and the analogy has merit. Don't forget that the Constable has a separate accountablility to the Parish Assembly - there is provision for a two-stage representation, with important parish matters being discussed at a Parish Assembly, where all parishioners have the same vote - and for that decision to be manifested in the Parliament by the Constable.

      I do not understand the comment that Option A allows the Constable to concentrate purely on parish affairs - you seem to intimate that this is a full time job - patently it is not, it is an honorary role and effectively an executive position. The work of running the parish is actually undertaken by the Parish Secretary and associated staff - this is a professional situation, with the need for professional training, knowledge of systems and of compliance. Either the Constable must be of considerable independent means or on a good pension or they must be engaged in some other paid work. I thought we had taken a step away from wealth being a pre-requisite for public office.

      Furthermore, you refer to the Constable meeting with the Parish's deputies. Under option A these would no longer exist. Except of course in the case of St Helier, wherein lies the whole point of the lack of parity and the loading of option A in favour of St Heler, from this point of view at least.

      Delete
  3. The problem is the total number- 42. It is not clear that there will be sufficient members to provide a viable scrutiny and the Commission have not been able to justify where the figure was derived from.

    Plus the Electoral Commission will be pushing for rescindment of the Troy Rule - recommended by Clothier as we do not have political parties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have already addressed this point in comments on my earlier posting. To recap.... section 4 of the Electoral Commission's final report deals with the Issue of numbers.

      I believe you are mistaken in thinking that the EC believe that the Troy Rule should be abolished. They clearly state that this is outside of their terms of reference (4.10 page 19).

      Likewise the EC seems to have done sufficient work on the question of numbers to be confident in their recommendation to reduce to 42.

      I understand your concerns about scrutiny but from an outside perspective the Exec/Scrutiny relationship has often been more like a bitter divorce than a critical friendship. There have been some excellent results but also in the past some blatant attempts to promote alternative policy and to use scrutiny for political purposes. In my humble view our government, was better when it was truly concensual and the current method of operation is not allowing that to work. That is where major changes are necessary by the machinery of government review mentioned in the EC report. I don't believe the reduction in numbers will harm or limit that, rather it will set the parameters for that reform

      Delete
  4. If there is one way to ensure the demise of our strong and important tradition of honorary service, it is to vote for Option B.

    The Electoral Commissions report very clearly says that in the new States all members should consider their primary duties to be as States Members. So that will fundamentally change the nature of a Constable to being primarily a States role rather than a Parish one.

    That combined with a smaller States will mean the Constables will have to be more active, potentially becoming ministers. At the last election the Parishioners of St Brelade showed their Constable what they thought of such a prospect.

    The extra workload some Constables may have to take on in the States may necessitate a chief executive anyway, so Option B is certainly no safeguard against that.

    But on this point on Parishioners being asked to remunerate the Constables, that is all that will be done, they will be asked. They can say no. That's the beautiful thing about the Parish assemblies. And anyway, there is nothing whatsoever stopping the Parishioners from choosing to remunerate their Constable on top of their current States salary as it is. Though I must say it's a contradiction to argue that the role must remain honorary and unpaid, but only on the condition that they receive an automatic States salary (which effectively nullifies the honorary point).

    Option A is the best of both worlds because voters are not forced to have a Constable sit in the States if they would prefer they were purely in the Parish. To force Constables to be in the States inevitably will put off some from standing as Constable who would like to give something back to their Parish, but aren't interested in taking up politics.

    I think the above commenter is actually wrong on Option B providing all islanders the same number of votes. That is only the case on paper, in practice many Constable elections are uncontested and therefore some people in the island will have 5 votes whereas some will have 6. Under Option A we all get 7 votes and they are all equal votes, unlike the Constable elections.

    The task for the Option B camp is to explain to people in St Helier why they are not entitled to as much a say in how their island is run than the country Parishes, this despite (and none of this is reflected in your blog) the fact that St Helier is the Parish that hosts the majority of States buildings without collecting rates from them and which pays to provide facilities that most islanders use even if they don't live in St Helier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm having tech problems responding to this comment, so will try to break my response down into smaller chunks

      Mr Mezec begins, "If there is one way to ensure the demise of our strong and important tradition of honorary service, it is to vote for Option B". Actually, no, if there is one certain way to ensure the demise of our strong and important tradition of honorary service, it is to remove the honorary element and to start paying people to take up the posts. The whole point of my main posting, which seems to have gone over his head, is the fact that St Helier has made carved itself a different path in some areas and is in many ways not typical of the honorary system. As I said, there may be good reasons why this is the case, but already this is able to have an impact on the honorary system in other parishes. As such the stance of the Constable of St Helier is not particularly surprising but cannot be seen to have any real relevance to the other 11 parishes.

      Mr Mezec also takes up the point that "the Electoral Commissions report very clearly says that in the new States all members should consider their primary duties to be as States Members". He goes on to say "so that will fundamentally change the nature of a Constable to being primarily a States role rather than a Parish one" and follows this with the usual commentary on the fate of the previous Constable of St Brelade. What he fails to mention or perhaps even remember is that the position of the Constable in the States is nothing new. Of course, the Constables have had a role in the States for centuries since the days of the "3 Estates" and in all that time have been elected by Parishioners with the certain knowledge that they would have a seat in the States. It is some relatively recent fancy that Constables do not want to sit in the States or that some people would like to be Constables but are put off by the political aspect of the position. That's like saying that there are some some people who might like to become doctors but are put off from pursuing this because they don't want to work in hospitals. Taking on any role seriously means taking on all aspects of it. Applicants for a job do not usually write their own job descriptions.

      Delete
    2. The fact that Constables should take a full part in the workings of the States Assembly is nothing new either - that has always been the case, several long standing committee presidents come to mind, Jack Roche and John Le Sueur to name just two. Since the advent of Ministerial government, all the Chairmen of the PPC have been Constables, and many Constables have served as Assistant Ministers.

      I am sure that there were many factors that determined outcome of the last election for Constable of St Brelade but one thing that is seldom mentioned is that all States Members in the last Assembly were tied up in the States Chamber for an unprecedented proportion of their time. The States Annual reports have a breakdown of hours spent on debate, numbers of propositions, questions etc and the previous Assembly broke several records. Whether all this amounted to more efficient or accountable governments and whether the high number of propositions debated at length and then overwhelmingly lost actually made the life of the average Jerseyman any better is a topic in itself but certainly it limited the time that Members had for their other elected duties outside the States and for their basic constituency work. That said, and even after Mike Jackson was defeated in 2011, there were still Constables willing to put themselves forward for major positions. For example, the Constable of St Peter was the Chief Minister's nomination for TTS Minister but was not selected by the Assembly. The notion that Constables cannot fulfil a role in the Assembly is just plain wrong. It is also purely for their States work that Constables are paid the States Members' salary.

      Mr Mezec again brings up the old chestnut of uncontested elections. Once and for all, it is not only some Constables' elections that have been uncontested, several deputies are returned that way, even some in multi-seat constituencies. With the large district elections for deputy, that will almost certainly be a thing of the past but of course it is true that the Constables' elections will remain single-seat. However there is a real probability that with the two pronged change of a reduced number of seats overall and the loss of all other parish-based seats that the elections for Constable will be much hotly contested. It is up to the candidates to step forward – after all the experiences in St Saviour and St Brelade last time around prove that there is no such thing as a safe seat.

      Mr Mezec concludes by taking me to task for not mentioning the the fact that "St Helier is the Parish that hosts the majority of States buildings without collecting rates from them and which pays to provide facilities that most islanders use even if they don't live in St Helier". Well firstly he should talk to the Constable of St Peter about the rate income he is losing on the States of Jersey Airport. Adding that into his much smaller rate base would be quite a thing! Secondly it is a myth that people coming into St Helier simply use facilities without contributing. A huge portion of the St Helier rateable income surely comes from businesses, shops, restaurants etc which are supported by those very people. The issue of the States paying rates has been raised before and will be raised again. Mr Mezec should not forget that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If the States have to pay rates, they will pay them with taxpayers' money and that includes the taxpayers who also pay rates in St Helier. How much benefit those people would see is a matter or conjecture.

      I'm STILL supporting Option B

      Delete
  5. There is no reason why there has to be 12 parishes, just because of the historical facts. The UK changes the boundaries of its counties so perhaps Jersey would be better served with just 6 parishes?

    The parishes would of course remain ecclesiastical parishes, but as I am not CofE and neither are many Jersey people. It is though breaking the link between Church and State, I make no comment on whether that is good or bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Electoral Commission's website has all the submissions made to it available for perusal. I've trawled them and the feeling for the Parish system as is is obvious, even amongst many of those who do not support the Constables. Section 6.12 of the final report deals with this. I can see no suggestion anywhere that tinkering with the parish identities is called for by anyone.

      Delete
  6. I admire your attempt to intellectualise Option B. Few others will do so, as the appeal will be to emotion, sentiment and tradition.

    Were Option B to succeed, would we be voting for Constables to be the political head of the parish or as a States representative, elected through a constituency that was limited to the historic parish boundaries? Sitting in an Assembly next to New Deputies elected in districts of roughly equal size would simply exacerbate the contradiction. Their anachronistic nature would be manifest.

    If Constables wish to stand for election as Deputies then Option permits this possibility, but we have to recognise that their nature would change. They would be elected as people’s representatives in the States, even if they presented themselves as representing a parish interest. Logically there should be only one category of States Member, thinking about the interests of the island as a whole and not restricted by the horizon of the parish boundary.

    One cannot dismiss the issue as the difference between apples and pears. “The numerical deficiencies of option “B” ” are not niceties. Equality of representation and voting power are central to a democratic constitutions. Relying on “significant cultural and historical importance” as the basis for legitimising something that that is irrational lacks credibility.

    In the 19th Century the political dominance of the Country over the Town in the States Assembly permitted the successful resistance of conservative landed property to Liberal commercial interests. I have dealt on my blog with a Petition in 1886 calling for augmentation of political representation for St Helier. Then 28,000 lived in the Town, whilst the other 11 parishes had a total population of 24,000, yet St Helier had only 5 representatives and the others 33 in the States. Option B permits 9 representatives (5 Deputies, 4 Constables) in the new District 5 (St J, St My, St L, St O) with 11,100 eligible voters, whilst St Helier’s 26,890 get only 11 representatives (10 Deputies, 1 Constable) – the same old game of ignoring the Town. Today new wine fills those old bottles and the difference is one of social interests.

    The continuation of the Constables in the Assembly poses an obstacle to a thorough democratisation and modernisation of the Jersey political system. This process is to be combined with the separation of powers and removal of the Bailiff as President of the Assembly. The political class are paralysed by their understanding of the need to modernise and their temerity at the possible consequences of that process. They know, as Tocqueville pointed out, regimes are at their most vulnerable when they embark upon the process of change.

    In Lampedusa’s novel The Leopard, the Sicilian Nobleman caught up in the political and social changes of Risorgimento Italy, embodies the understanding of true conservatives, as opposed to mere reactionaries, in the paradox that for things to remain the same, things must change.

    Viva Garibaldi!

    P.S. Change the font; its ghastly and illegible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not consciously seeking to intellectualise the argument for Option B although that may well be how my posts can be perceived – I am merely stating the facts as they are and removing the speculation and largely regurgitated dogma that some of the proponents of Option A are peddling. Intellectualising an argument can bring its own spin – it is easy to report the views and philosophies of others and make them appear factual but in reality they remain just opinion. I also would not seek to totally remove emotion and heritage from any argument as these are valid human considerations and deserve to have an effect (as they are considered in many international and legal conventions which recognise special geographic and cultural circumstances as being grounds for latitude in compliance.

      I get the sense that many of those who comment on the Parish system and on how the proposed reforms will affect it have very little actual knowledge of the way it works and just see it as an abstract “machine” that provides and/or facilitates a great many services at a very reasonable cost. My concern is not for the Constables per se but for the Parish system itself. I believe – and not one single Option A supporter has put anything on the table that challenges that belief – that the Parish system will be irreversibly weakened if each Parish is not represented in the central government.

      Delete