A Secret Cabal Behind Closed Doors...?
According to Mike Dun, the Constables form a powerful block which means in private meetings, behind closed doors, not presumably, unlike the Secret Order of the Illuminati. He writes:
"Here is a link to the Committee of Constables of Jersey which is clearly a political group. The minutes reveal just how wide-ranging this group is - not just talking about all aspects of law making and the government of Jersey people but actually making decisions in private meetings, behind closed doors that affect us all. So not only a powerful political group but an immensely powerful and covert group of a dozen people who are paid from general public taxation but with only minimal public participation or supervision.
https://parish.gov.je/.../Comit%C3%A9-des-Conn%C3..."
"This political group must be subjected to full public examination before the next election in June 2022 and reformed urgently."
Does Reform publish its internal minutes? I'd be interested to know.
But does Mike actually read those minutes. Please note (from the minutes):
"The Comité, with reference to its minute no. 7 of 12th April 2021, approved a response to the Democratic Accountability and Governance Sub-Committee of the Privileges and Procedures Committee on the Democratic Accountability and Governance Review. In general terms, it was not the role of the Comité to comment on the areas outlined in the terms of reference as it did not hold a ‘collective’ view or mandate (the exception being the statutory duty on Connétables when convened as the Supervisory Committee pursuant to the Rates (Jersey) Law 2005). Individual Connétables would make their own comments on Jersey’s system of government; the process (and its effectiveness) for changing ministerial portfolios and moving Ministers around and the accountability and effectiveness of systems for electing Members to ministerial office or Scrutiny. However, the Comité did consider it appropriate to comment in general terms on the convoluted management and governance structure within the Island."
So note "No collective view"!!!!
In fact, all this talk of "making decisions in private meetings, behind closed doors that affect us all" is silly.
It is incumbent on all elected political authorities to make decisions, and not to seek the decision of the public all the time. The difference is that their decision making is transparent. You can read the minutes! If you don't like it, stand against a Constable in the next election, or bring matters up at a Parish assembly.
Indeed, that is what elections are for, and because minutes are published- and most of it is pretty mundane admin stuff anyway - you can judge and vote at elections.
Where is the real lack of transparency and secrecy?
The Constables committee publishes its minutes. The Government of Jersey, and especially the Competent Authority, have been hiding all their minutes from public gaze. These "Citizen's Panels" set up - who belongs to them, where are their minutes? We do not know. How can we judge and vote on that? These are the true "shadowy bodies" at the heart of government, who have no transparency.
Block Voting?
Mike Dun wrotes: "If no other party has more than 12 elected members after the June 2022 Jersey general election - should the 12 Constables automatically form the government?"
But two of them have signed up to the Alliance Party. So should it just be 10 Constables? A simple examination of their voting record shows that they don't all vote the same way anyway anymore, unlike Reform, who as a real party, always do.
Now around 20 or 30 years ago, there was much more of a case for the Constables all voting the same way, but that was then, and this is now - Mike Dun seems as stuck in a past era as those who decry the Honorary Police as "Hobby Bobbies". 20 or more years ago, people could join the Honorary Police and just pick up what to do as they went along from their peers and superiors. Now, as anyone who joins finds out, there is a rigorous programme of training - in association with the States of Jersey Police - before anyone is allowed to "fly solo"
Just to recap on that: Every officer who joins MUST undergo a foundation course. During that period they are not deployed unsupervised nor given any training on technical equipment which are subject to intensive courses later on in their advanced training. Courses are arranged and conducted by an approved States of Jersey Police trainer. Once the foundation course is completed to the satisfaction of the States of Jersey Police training staff, officers are certificated and may thereafter attend further courses for advanced training.
Likewise, the obligations of a Parish Constable are far greater than 20 years ago.
The Constables and Party Politics
Mike Dun writes:
"After all, the shift of two Constables has already meant that the Alliance Party has established a theoretical equal claim to be the “majority party” alongside the Constables and not a vote has yet been caste by the electorate… Inevitably this trend will continue into 2022 when more Constables defect to this party of assured status quo with their eyes on “ministerial” jobs. Who among them would really want to continue as a mere backbencher “Constable” with responsibility primarily for emptying the Parish bins?"
Notice how he uses derogatory language wherever possible: "responsibility primarily for emptying the Parish bins?". Perhaps he should look at some Parish accounts. But it's like calling him a "failed election candidate who consistently failed to engage with the electorate", as if that was his main claim to fame.
But from the Minutes of the Constable's Committee: "In general terms, it was not the role of the Comité to comment on the areas outlined in the terms of reference as it did not hold a ‘collective’ view or mandate."
Moreover Constables taking on Ministerial Office has thanks to at least one example, led to a Constable being voted out by the electorate in a contested election - yes they do happen, just as we have seen recently in St Clement.
And the Constable of St Brelade has already said he will stand as an Independent, so that's one against the two. I really don't think the voting record shows Constables defecting as Mike predicts anyway. The two Constables in question are already known for supporting the establishment position. Simon Crowcroft certainly won't. Karen Shenton-Stone is unlikely too do so. Andy Jehan is already critical of the current government, and he's only just been elected. Mike Jackson often is critical of the Council of Ministers. There's a lot of wishful thinking on the Mike Dun's part.
Mike Dun writes: The Constables are potentially a very powerful group – in reality a “political party”
Reform are a party - and they all vote the same way - unlike the Constables. That's not to say it is necessarily a bad thing that they are so consistent, it is just to point out the difference between a real party, and the fantasy that Mike Dun seems to harbour about the Constables. You could just as easily say that the Council of Ministers and the "nodding dogs" among Deputies who support them are "a very powerful group". Despite the Troy rule, they usually manage to muster enough support to even recently fend off a vote of Censure.
Oaths of Office
Obviously aware of the fact that - unlike Reform's voting records - there are differences, Mike tries to fend off criticism with special pleading:
"Being a member of a party does not mean that a person agrees with every policy of that party or group, so Constables can – and do – disagree on some issues sometimes. But they all accept their double duties when they swear their oaths or attend Constables Committee meetings etc and behave in accordance with the vague rules of their 2 offices."
The oath of office has to do with the running of the Parish, and nothing to do with voting the same way. There's nothing mysterious about it.
"You swear and promise, by the faith and oath that you owe to God, that you will well and faithfully
discharge the duties and office of Connétable of the Parish of…….; you will cause to be kept the
King's Peace; you will protect and uphold to the best of your ability the rights appertaining to the said
Parish, and as touching the public welfare thereof, you will be guided by the advice and counsel of
the Principals and other officers of the said Parish; which officers you will convene, or will cause to
be convened through your Centeniers, regularly to advise on the affairs of the Parish; you will
execute the lawful orders of the Lieutenant Governor, of the Bailiff, of his Deputy and of the Judges
and Jurats of the Royal Court, as pertaining to their respective offices, attending meetings of the
States whenever you are called upon to do so; and all this and your bounden duty you promise upon
your conscience to perform."
The dual duty is: a) a duty to their parishioners, and b) a duty to the public of the island by attending meetings of the SoJ. That's it. So in both parts of their duty, their duty is to the electorate who vote them in.
There is a double duty, but the Deputies also have a double duty, albeit a different one, not just to the electorate but also to the monarch.
"You swear and promise before God that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of (Senator)
(Deputy); that you will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth
the Second, her heirs and successors, according to Law; that you will uphold and maintain
the laws, privileges, liberties and franchises of Jersey, opposing whomsoever may wish to
infringe the same; that you will attend the meetings of the States whenever you are called
upon to do so; and generally that you will fulfil all the duties imposed upon you by virtue of
the said office. All of which you promise to do on your conscience."
Subsidiarity against Centralisation: Why I support the Parish system
Lastly, I would leave this to ponder. As a Distributist, I am committed to the political princilple know as the principle of subsidiarity. This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization.
In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the drive for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the State.
The Parish is an excellent example of that principle. It raises money from the rates to cover expenses, and is run as a very tight ship. Being smaller than the State, it can be more efficient than the State.
Remember when at the 2014 election, there were plans afoot to take rates from the Parishes and put them under a central (and paid) new Department. Rates soaring, more highly paid civil servants (paid for by higher rates), and an increase in central government control over the people of Jersey, with no say at all - rates after all get voted on in a Parish Assembly.
There was a PWC report (costing £50,000) commissioned to promote it. Oh yes, and that was when the votes voted in a Referendum overwhelmingly to keep the Constables, but never mind the ordinary bloke (or blokess, or trans-block, or bloke-fluid person) in the street, just bring dictat from on top - just as we have had recently with lots of decisions like the pay off for Charlie Parker and the appointment of a new CEO.
The Parish and the Parish Constable can be a bulwark against some of that creeping centralisation of power which, since the Pandemic, we have seen concentrated in even fewer hands - "The Competent Authority Ministers", and which with both that and the Citizen's Panels (membership unknown), have demonstrated a significant lack of transparency.
A Power Grab by the Constables? Truth or fantasy?
The idea that the Constables, as Mike Dun puts it, will "evolve further after the 2022 elections as the ultra-exclusive party of one dozen" is a fantasy, and his continual obsession with the Constables, seems to be verging on paranoia.
It should be remembered that in 2014, nearly two thirds of those who voted in the Referendum voted in favour of retaining the Constables. Mike has stated in the past that was because his campaign was a one man band without support, so it might fairly be asked why other politicians who supported removing the Constables did not come together as a team. Might the deficiency lie with his own inability to work within a team?
He has also suggested that the Yes Campaign was financed in a way that money was no object, and had powerful interests working for it. In fact, the core team was around 4 people, only one of whom was a Constable, and it was done cheaply but spending strategically to best effect - the website used the free Weebly system. Approval on strategy and written arguments did come from 11 Constables (not even all unified here) but development of those came from the core group.
A few more questions and answers:
Mike says of the Constables: "….once elected they decide for themselves how to keep busy and how to make best use of their time serving their parish, or the government aka “States” or their own personal interests."
The same is true of Parish Deputies, except they have no statutory obligations regarding their time apart from attendance of the States - which Constables also have. Deputies can be proactive or they can just sit back and take the money - much more so than Constables. Why on earth bring up such facile statements of fact and present them as exceptional?
"They are likely to become the “upper level” of government from which Ministers will be recruited –"
Very unlikely after a Constable was booted out after trying to combine Ministerial role and Parish role, and the Parishioners - the Parish electorate - felt neglected. That lesson was well learnt! They may become Assistant Ministers but they are well aware of the dangers of being Ministers.
"They are each provided with a comfy Parish office with a parking space and supportive staff"
Ministers and Assistant Ministers also get their own comfy States offices with supportive staff. In fact the civil servants there support them politically unlike Parish staff who do and must not get involved politically.
"Constables presumably receive a free bus pass if they are old enough and their pension entitlements but what happens if they are sick or unable to “work” for either job is a bit uncertain."
The same is true of every class of States member. Why on earth bring up such facile statements of fact and present them as exceptional?
In fact, if Deputies are sick and unable to work, nobody deputises for them, while the Procureur deputises for the Constable for Parish matters (and if there is a conflict of interest, such as presiding over hustings for the election of a Constable).
Mike says: "once “elected” and sworn before the Royal Court it is not so certain how they can be removed – except by rejection through the ballot box which is very rare - or by Royal Court “decree."
There is nothing to stop anyone contesting a Constable's election in their Parish. Except for St Helier, Constables have to live in the Parish. St Helier - because of commercial interests historically - has had many Constables who lived in nice pleasant rural areas and have no real participation in living in the Parish until the current incumbent.
The case of St John shows that when a Constable oversteps the mark, they can be held to account by a Parish Assembly, and even by the Royal Court for violating their oath of office. The fact that a sitting Constable was able to persuade Procureurs to agree with him showed that clearer guidelines were needed to avoid such a convoluted process in future, but the fact that it did work demonstrated that Constables are accountable to the electorate of the Parish.
The Real Secret Groups
Who sits on Citizen's Assemblies, such as the one for Climate Change? Surely it is desirable for people to know so we can see their background and expertise. But an FOI request tells you this is "a private matter". They do really meet in secret, publish a report with recommendations, but no minutes showing discussions they have, and are help accountable to no-one.
The same is true of the Treasury Advisory Panel which gave us a Debt Strategy. How can we judge their expertise if we don't know who they are? All minutes of meetings are hidden behind a cloak of secrecy. The same is true of the Citizen's Panel to develop the criteria for choosing the site of the hospital.
These groups really are " making decisions in private meetings, behind closed doors that affect us all.". And we know that because apart from the bare and obvious fact that they do confer together, minutes are not publicly available, membership is not publicly available.
Posts
