Incident in Parish Website

I've no problem with Simon Crowcroft using his personal blog to state his views.

That's at http://sthelier.blogspot.com/   

But should he be stating them on "Your Parish Online" website? The official website for the Parish of St Helier? Should an Official Parish Website endorse Option A?

In my opinion he should not be using the Parish website to progress personal opinions on the referendum. That is an abuse of the website which is essentially a tool of the municipality to provide information and deliver certain services - not a political forum or to publish personal opinions.

http://www.sthelier.je/blog/   

That does seem to be using a Parish facility which should be neutral, to promote a viewpoint. Should the Procureurs or Deputies also have a say? I would have thought the Parish site should be non-partisan, and personal views kept to a private blog, not one which appears to be an integral part of the website, as this does. This seems to say "The Parish says...". If you look at the other blog postings by Simon, they are regarding general matters, mostly relating to the Parish, not political propaganda.

The St. Helier website (st.helier.je) is the Parish's own, not part of the.gov.je intranet which provides the 'official site'. But I think it is still wrong for the Constable to apparently 'hijack' it for personal purposes.

I wouldn't agree with Constable Dan Murphy who Tweeted "Surely in order to preserve his integrity Crowcroft must resign as a constable now". After all, Constable Len Norman is on record - a video still exists online - in 2012 of saying the Constables should not sit in the States. That's personal opinion. It's on a private blog. It is not part of an official Parish website of St Clement. But the St Helier site has a tab marked "Blog", that fits seamlessly into the website; it's part of the website, not a private and separate blog.

Is the Town Crier also going to become a mouthpiece for the Constable's message about Option A? The last election in 2011 saw what I think was a very detrimental effect of Parish magazines being use as election platforms. St Saviour's magazine, La Cloche, did have a pull out where all the candidates could have a photo and brief resume (and it mistakenly put Rob Duhamel's twice, one under Roy le Herrisier's photo) and it also had paid advertising at special rates for those who wanted extra coverage. Grouville had an option to have a flier, which happened to go out with just one of the candidates for Deputy by an oversight.

I think these approaches are mistaken in their use of a Parish Magazine. A Parish magazine should inform people where to vote, how to vote (pre-voting, postal voting), and when to vote. But they shouldn't become political platforms or take sides; neither should the Parish website. St Brelade's Parish magazine was completely neutral, even to the extent of having the Chef de Police give the Constable's message (as it was a contested election for Constable), and having a guest editor to ensure independence (as the editor was standing for election). And believe me, that guest editor did not stand for any politician trying to sneak in a political advantage by way of a news story.

And even more so, I think that using a Parish website to effectively support Option A is not right, any more than using one for Option B or C would be. If the Parish website has any information, it should be to outline the Referendum options, give details of districts and times for voting, give information on pre-voting or postal voting. It should not be used as a platform for the Constable's own views.

I think he should be respectfully asked to remove it.

On the Spot Fines for Jersey Motorists

Do you remember Tony Blair's idea about "on the spot" fines? I was reading "The Norman Isles" by Basil C de Guerin, and I came across something very similar.

This book was published in Oxford in 1948, before the reforms which removed the Jurats and Rectors from the States. On traffic control it notes that though all the regulations are enforced by the local police and honorary parochial officials.

But then it introduces something which does not apply today (regardless of the level of fine):

Of these latter the most important is the parish "Constable", or mayor, whose duty it is to issue licences to motorists resident within his domain. Under the local law these Constables and their junior officers known as "Centeniers", all of whom serve on an entirely voluntary basis, have power to stop any motorist or cyclist and to fine them on the spot up to a sum of 5/- for minor offences committed in the officer's parish.

I wonder when that practice stopped, and why?

Another practice which was in place was the registration of bicycles, for which some members of the States and members of the public have called to be introduced, little knowing that it was in place back in 1948.

As on all the Channel Islands, bicycles must also be licensed annually, at a rate of 2/6 per machine, the receipt for which must be displayed prominently on the rear fork. That this system adds appreciably to the local revenue is obvious when it is realised that before the war over 15,000 cyclists paid this tax, and the number is estimated to have increased beyond that figure to-day.

The note on revenue probably explains - in part - why the tax disappeared - as the motor car took over as the principal form of transport, the declining number of cyclists probably did not make it worthwhile; moreover, the booming tourist industry brought a new problem. While hire cars paid road tax, what of visitors who brought their bikes over to Jersey?

The last, and most peculiar part of Jersey's road traffic regulations concerns parking. I've never heard of this alternate side of streets rule, and would be extremely interested if anyone knows any more about it, and when it vanished (perhaps when the pedestrian precinct was formed?).

A peculiarity of these motoring regulations in the town of St. Helier which is somewhat confusing to visiting motorists, is the rule of unilateral parking on alternate sides of the principal streets on alternate days; as is the prohibition of parking without lights in certain thoroughfares, while other roads which are officially "private" do not come under this ban.

White lines and yellow warning lines are in evidence on the road surfaces, but abuse of these warnings can only be punished at the discretion of the Constable of the parish, who is also responsible for placing them in such positions as he personally considers necessary.

I suspect that the fines for parking show a confusion between Parish roads and Public roads, which until recently led to the farcical situation whereby two different sets of street cleaning machines would clean St Helier's roads, one paid for by the Parish, doing the Parish roads, and the other by the States on Public Roads. The cleaning brushes would be raised, the machines would be driven across one road, and start again with the gap of a road crossing in between!

Fortunately, this seems to have been resolved by Constable Simon Crowcroft in what could be properly termed "rationalisation", so that the responsibility for cleaning the roads has been allocated in more sensible geographical clusters, with the Parish taking care of cleaning the inner roads, and the States taking care of the outer roads.

Regarding this distinction, however, it is certainly the case that the Parish are in charge of policing the Parish roads and car parks, and St Brelade has, I believe, a traffic warden (or parking control officer) on its payroll. The same is true of yellow lines on Parish roads, road maintenance required of them, and the "branchage" when landowners have to cut back overhanging branches. These matters all come under the purview of the Parish roads committee, which still includes the Parish rector, and which usually repairs to a suitable hostelry for food after it has done the branchage.

Of course, there are still "private roads" in housing estates, and they have their own peculiar form of policing. The one close to me had a retired military type, who would come out from his front door, and berate anyone who parked on the pavement in his private road. Of course, the road was a private road for around 150 houses in the estate, but his particular locale was guarded fiercely, and he would emerge, red faced, shouting!

 

But along with on the spot fines, registration charges for bicycles, and alternative day parking, he is now long gone, just a distant memory.

 

States Members Remuneration

An argument which was deployed recently in the debate on GST was about the changing economic circumstances of the world since GST was introduced. A common theme amongst people who voted against exemptions - but who had noted only back in November when running as Deputy that they would vote for exemptions - was that "the world had changed" with the credit crunch, and the economic recession. But that surely cuts both ways. If we have to tighten our belts, and cannot afford to remove GST because of falling States revenue - which is a fair enough argument - then surely the expenditure on States members remuneration cannot be taken for granted either. It cannot be assumed that by default the pay must rise because it always has.

Related to that is the notion of "fairness". I am sure that despite Philip Ozouf calling for a freeze in pay for public sector employees, this will somehow not apply to the proposed increase in remuneration for States members, which is really quite unjust. It is about time the States set by example, rather than by exception, and realised that the determination of their pay will certainly be scrutinised by public sector unions - and quite rightly. The notion of "fairness" is as C.S. Lewis noted in the 1940s, is very strongly rooted in people, and I think this is still so today.

Lastly, one of the other ideas is that Ministers should have more pay than ordinary States Members. They already have more perks - Ministers have their own free blackberry mobile phones while in office. But should they have more pay? To bring a proposition to the States, the Minister has the backing of his own department, a multitude of civil servants from Chief Officer downward to advise him. They take at least some of the care, effort and time away from him, and one is hoped, stop him making mistakes. A private member bringing a proposition has to spend all, his own time researching and preparing the proposition, and does not have the backing of a large department.

To take just two recent examples. Whatever the merits of his case about the incinerator, Daniel Wimberley had to investigate and research a multitude of matters on his own, or possibly with one or two helpers, and then put it together in a coherent form. The Minister, Michael Jackson, on the contrary, had a reply prepared for him by his own department. The same happened with the proposition by Ben Shenton on Reg's Skips. Planning, and the Law Officers department both prepared replies on behalf of Freddie Cohen and Ian Le Marquand, the Ministers involved in those areas.

The argument that a Minister spends his time "running his department" is a nonsense; that is what we have Chief Officers for. Does the Health department suddenly grind to a halt when Jim Perchard resigns? Of course not! The Minister supplies oversight, decides on policy, and is the accountable face of a department to the public. But when a Minister makes his own decisions regardless of his departments advice - Guy de Faye allowing utility companies to just dig through land without the landowner's permission - they invariable come adrift. So should Ministers have more pay? Do they have more or less time for their electorate as a result of having to take time to run a department? If less, as certainly has been the case - Alistair Layzell said he thought he had spent too little time looking after the electorate in St Aubin when he lost an election, and Mike Jackson has certainly found it has taken him away more from Parish matters, and Simon Crowcroft gave up his committee when he became Constable - then it is not a case of spending more time on their department in addition to helping the electorate, but often instead of doing so; backbenchers are supplying the democratic deficiency, and if they do it well, as they often do, they deserve equal pay for doing so.

New Blogs

A few weeks ago, I heard on BBC Radio Jersey that Geoff Cook, of Jersey Finance, had begun a blog

http://mail.jerseyfinance.je/News/Comments-from-Geoff-Cook/

Alas! It's a more like a selection of personal press releases; it has no place for comments.

http://sthelier.blogspot.com/

The above - Simon Crowcroft's - is much more of a standard blog. And a most interesting opening. Where is St James Wine Bar? Where is St James Street? And is it the same as James Street? If not, where is that? I never realized street names in St Helier could be so confusing, and I'm going to have a look in the Almanac to see if there are any others. A great insight into a small part of the quirky matters that crop up for a Connetable, and it is not frivolous either, despite the entertaining way in which Simon - clearly a good writer! - presents it. I look forward to more!