An Assessment of John Henwood's Letter

John Henwood recently had a letter published in the JEP giving an "inside track" on some aspects of the events leading to Charlie Parker's resignation. Here are are extracts and some comments by me.

 "On 29 October, Mr Parker wrote to the Chief Minister setting out the position from his perspective. The letter was released to the media, but not widely disseminated in full. In it he pointed out that since 2016 he had been on the board of the entity responsible for the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, a huge undertaking." (Henwood)

But as Gary Burgess points out, we are only hearing this now. He also mentions "politicians and civil servants who regularly tell me of their frustration at getting access to the man at the top", something which John Henwood is seemingly unaware of.

Under Article 10 of the Employment of States of Jersey Employees (Jersey) Law 2005 (“the Law”), provision is made for the States Employment Board (“SEB”) to delegate any of its powers or functions under the Law to any of its members or the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”).

John Henwood states that: "In fact, the Chief Minister was entitled to give consent. While it is the case that the SEB is the employer, the Chief Minister is chairman of the SEB and has specifically delegated authority to act."

But this is clearly only under the terms of Article 10, and I would like to see the decision making the delegation which he says is the case in this circumstance. I can't see it anywhere!

"As often happens at such times, politicians’ instincts of self-preservation kick in and there was a brief period of who had said what to whom and who knew what, which the media duly reported." (Henwood)

There is no mention of the Communications Unit press release which was not authorised by any politician and yet somehow came out and completely muddied the waters for the media. That was nothing to do with politicians’ instincts of self-preservation. Why is that omitted from John Henwood's account?

 And finally, John Henwood says:

 "What has already occurred at a political level was not a debate, it was a farrago of misrule led by a few politicians who seized an opportunity to get rid of a chief executive who was making them uncomfortable by doing what he was employed to do – drive change in the public sector.”

 “There’s nothing new in that. Throughout history good people who have tried to transform things for the better have been brought down by those who oppose change, often for reasons of personal position.”

 Although he names no names, his descriptions make it clear where he think blame lies. For example, Kristina Moore is described as “a constant critic of Senator Le Fondré”

 "Mr Parker’s letter did nothing to lower the temperature and States Members were demanding action. On 1 November, Senator Kristina Moore, a constant critic of Senator Le Fondré, seized the moment to announce that she would be lodging a vote of no confidence against the Chief Minister the following day.”

 Deputy Morel is also clearly in the firing line:

 “Deputy Morel, impatient for action, demanded through social media: ‘There should be no “talks”. Any resolution that doesn’t involve CP leaving his NED role will have tremendous consequences.’” (Henwood)

 And yet ultimate responsibility must surely lie within SEB itself:

 “The most revealing part of the meeting was when the vice-chairman of the SEB, Constable Richard Buchanan, said that without a successful resolution he believed the vote of no confidence in the Chief Minister would succeed.” (Henwood)

 “Mr Buchanan later wrote to Mr Parker stating that the SEB was not minded to withdraw its permission for him to take on the NED role. However, it also instructed him to resign the NED position. In other words, you have permission to take on the New River post, but you must resign from it. How bizarre.” (Henwood)

 But that decision was from SEB – of which, let us not forget – as John Henwood omits to remind us here – where John Le Fondre is in the Chair, and not those outside the Government such as Kristina Moore or Kirsten Morel. In other words, if Charlie Parker was a sacrificial lamb, it was to prevent a vote of no confidence succeeding, and surely the Chief Minister must have been aware of that.

In conclusion, John Henwood gives us some extra background information, but that also raises other questions. I would like to be sure that some of the information he says was released to the media, such as Gary Burgess, actually was seen by them, and in what form.

Context is everything. In his version, the noble Charlie Parker, like the noble Julius Caesar, is brought down by the wicked Brutus and disaffected Roman Senators for their own political ends. That’s certainly playing to Shakespearean tragedy, but while the bare events described are not in dispute, the manner of their presentation, and the motivations assigned to others is certainly debatable.

Looking at it as if it was a narrative about historical events, and therefore embedded with a degree of interpretation, John Henwood’s remarks should not just be treated as an unvarnished “gospel truth”. All history, as historians know, except for bare chronology (and even there some selection is involved) is mediated through the lens of the writers.  

To say as the Jersey Evening Post does, “It has been said that falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind while truth lags behind” is to give his narrative a status which it may or may not deserve, and any investigation of what occurred must go further in speaking to other witnesses. 

For example, John Henwood presents the Buckingham Palace case as an argument, but we don't know exactly what form this takes unless we can see original source documents to the media (or at least a lengthy extract). It may have been omitted because it was not made strongly or not exactly the same situation of employment. Do we have the terms of engagement of that appointment?

And the New River blurb states that "In this role [CEO Jersey], he has led an ambitious programme to transform and modernise Jersey’s public services and developed a major infrastructure vehicle for funding the Island’s infrastructure and regeneration plans."

As Gary Burgess comments:

Interesting, in its own blurb, NewRiver REIT plc bigs up Charlie Parker for his “ambitious programme to transform and modernise Jersey’s public services”, but it also puts on a pedestal the “major infrastructure vehicle for funding” which, curiously, the island’s politicians haven’t even yet approved.

Also curious is the official statement from the government which not only says both the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister approved his second gig which it claims he’ll be doing in his own time, but also that it “will inform Jersey’s economic recovery from Covid-19.”

Surely it can’t be both.

Somehow this was not on John Henwood's radar in his presentation. I'm not saying Charlie Parker is as black as some of his critics may maintain, but it is surely unlikely he is quite as wonderful as John Henwood makes out.