The Paralysis of the Parish

The Paralysis of the Parish

After more than an hour of questions, confusion, interruptions – and even an accusation that communism had taken root – parishioners of St Peter decided to put off a vote by several weeks in a meeting that at times carried shades of the Handforth Parish Council.

ST Brelade parishioners have postponed a vote on how to fund a £500,000 revamp of the Elephant Park over concerns about a lack of detailed information. The proposal, brought forward by Constable Mike Jackson at a parish assembly this week, involved allocating £250,000 from the property reserve fund and securing a commercial loan of up to the same value.

Last night, a discussion on voting funds to repair the roof discussion was quite involved with all sorts of suggestions, including selling the parish hall and moving. The Constable was asked to come back with more detailed figures. Meanwhile, the roof continues to deteriorate and the wood rots beneath it.

But where would the Parish Hall move? The only site large enough was the old Les Quennevais School, and that's gone. Communicare is already busy with organisations and anyway is too small. You need a good hall and a back office area large enough, and a space for the centeniers to reside and hold Parish hall enquiries. Where on earth is there which would do within the Parish? We always get the selling the Parish Hall, but now that the old school site has gone, there really is nowhere else viable.

However, what seems to be increasingly the case, is Parish meetings are actually attended by Deputies at least one of whom who has not been seen there for years, who are leading questioning, some justified, but some less so, which is paralysing the ability of the Parish to take any decisions.

One thing that is clearly needed is more engagement. The last big St Aubin project that I remember, which included the removal of the central aisle in the road and introduction of zebra crossings, had Parish drop in sessions, where what was proposed could be questioned, and scrutinised long before the Parish assembly. I think that is one way past the logjam. Figures and plans released at the 11th hour are not engagement but smack of fire fighting, in much the same way the last Council of Ministers suddenly started to engage more with the public when the Vote of No Confidence was pending.

Other potential projects outside of the direct scope of the Constable also require more details. While not the subject of a Parish assembly, the proposals of Beautiful Jersey have a business plan without figures. As Claude Littner of The Apprentice might say of the plans: “Are they realistic, are they achievable, are they sensible, do the numbers add up”. But there are no numbers!

The Parish magazine could also be a forum for explaining what is proposed, where plans can be seen and questions raised. But it does all require some forward planning. It is quarterly. We can put information like the branchage because we have dates in time. Requests for help with the Battle have come from the local organisation in a timely manner. But it does require knowing what is coming up in three to four months at Parish assemblies - not the smaller stuff, but the large costing projects.

Sometimes decisions may be pushed back, and quite rightly, but those who in the past criticised items going through on the nod of a few attending a Parish assembly should also be aware that the slightly larger numbers we are now seeing hardly constitute engagement. If 20 people hardly represent the whole Parish, neither would 40 - even in St Mary!

It may be that the Parish assembly and how voting takes place needs a rethink. The EGM for Durrell has proxy voting available, but that does require pre-planning and information put into the public domain. Nonetheless it engages with the entire Zoo membership, and not just those activists at the EGM. Should Parish Assembly decisions, where large capital sums are required, also go down that road? It is something worth considering. 

The matter was raised - but rejected - in 2001 by a working party:

Concern has been expressed in some quarters at the potential for a small minority of members of the Parish Assembly having an unrepresentative effect on the financial workings of the Parish. This concern has been centred on the view that, where the vast majority of parishioners might be happy with a proposal, or perhaps might not hold any strong views, they would not see the need to attend when that proposal was discussed at the Parish Assembly. Thus minorities could, for example, bring a Parish to financial ruin when setting an annual rate. 

It has been suggested that the Parish could be likened to a business with shareholders - these being the members of the Assembly. The question has been asked whether all entitled Parishioners, if made party to the full facts of a proposal, could in some way be able to indicate their acceptance or rejection of that proposal by means of a proxy or postal vote which would be counted at the Parish Assembly in question. The Law Officers have advised that proxy or postal voting is not catered for under existing procedures and would certainly require amendment to existing legislation.

An alternative compromise might be that proposed in 2019 but withdrawn before voting:

that a minimum of 10 parishioners may (by serving written notice to the Connétable at least one week before the scheduled date of the Parish Assembly) require additional time to be provided for voting on a proposition at a Parish Assembly, with votes cast at the Parish Assembly on that proposition supplemented by votes cast in the Parish Hall on the day after the Parish Assembly, in order to enable an increased number of parishioners to vote on the most significant propositions

I think something must be done, or the Parish will be paralysed from voting on substantive matters, and I am not sure we are not too far from the note that "minorities could, for example, bring a Parish to financial ruin when setting an annual rate."