A Divided Parish - Part 4

After the court case against Donald Lucas had collapsed, the shambles of the St Brelade's rating system led to 2 stormy parish assemblies in February 1982. An overwhelming vote at a Paris assembly called by the electors led to Mr Lucas being reinstated in his job, even though Len Downer did not allow him to actually work at the Parish Hall - instead he was given "paid leave."

An enquiry team had been set up after the first parish assembly and this included the former Bailiff Sir Robert Le Masurier, and Jurats Henry Perree and Raymond Le Cornu. The conclusions of this team was that the Parish had no real problems, but rather they claimed that the Island's rating system had caused the Parish's problems, because it had been designed for the last century, and the problems of the 20th century - such as large and much more unwieldy Parishes of many properties, all of which needed assessing, a fast post-war price escalation of property value, and the rapid inflation of the late 1970s. The older system designed was for smaller communities, where valuations were largely static, and could not cope.

But when this was considered by the Comité Paroissale, there was a rift within that body itself. One of the parish's four Centeniers, Douglas Isherwood, walked out of the meeting of the Comité Paroissale in April 1982 after a strong difference of opinion. This leaked out to the Jersey Evening Post. Feeling fenced in by an intrusive media, the Constable, Mr Len Downer, refused to discuss either the meeting or the reports that Mr Isherwood had walked out.

Meanwhile Mr Donald Lucas was not remaining silent but was still calling for an enquiry to be held, because he claimed that the full facts of the case had never been aired. He argued that the committee of enquiry was wrong in concluding that defects in the rate law were at the root of the problem. " I made specific complaints about the way in which I believed the law was being abused, and these were substantiated in the Royal Court. The parish cannot as Sir Robert and the Jurats suggest, take comfort from the fact that the same sort of irregularities that I reported in St Brelade are taking place in other parishes." He also announced that he would be seriously considering returning to his job at the Parish Hall when his paid leave expired in two weeks time. The parish secretary, Mr Lawrence Le Brocq, thought that this might not prove possible as it would be a very delicate situation with Mrs Olga Johnson still at work on the rates system in the parish!

On May 5, 1982 there was a 90 minute meeting which was dominated by several major speeches. The Constable, Mr Len Downer, opened the meeting by saying that part of the problem was that the three-man committee of enquiry had not been able to find adequate terms of reference to complete their work. Still smarting from the walk-out by Centenier Isherwood, he echoed the call in a letter from the three-man committee which called for the parish officers to "be true to their oath of office", which he then made plain that he understood meant they should either give him their support or offer their resignation. " I would like everybody here to help in ending this disharmony in the parish," he said. But a call for all opposition to cease, and to stifle debate was clearly not going to work.

Senator Ralph Vibert then made a major speech. "We have had enough in this parish," he said, "It is not a question of putting anything under the carpet, but enough is enough. You want to consider how this started. It started because Donald Lucas saw there was something wrong in the assessments, and he was quite right. He told the Constable and the Constable told him to put it down in writing and he was quite right to do so. What the Constable did or did not do his past history. Mrs Johnson was so badly advised and was stupid, because it was impossible to pin libel on Donald Lucas. It was bound to be privileged. The new Constable decided, because of peace in the Parish Hall, to dismiss Donald Lucas. In this he was wrong, definitely wrong. It must be said that the previous Bailiff in his report says that he does not know what he would have done in the circumstances. The Constable must take Donald Lucas back. We all voted that there should be an enquiry into anything that was wrong in the parish, and you were all asked to put any points which would be investigated. These points consisted of two things only -- complaints made by Mr Lucas and complaints made by other people about rates."

He went on to note that part of the problem must lie with the deficiencies of the rating system: "The enquiry team said that they could not enquire into Mr Lucas's legal case or individual rating matters. They said that the real cause of the trouble is the law on rates. It is a proper mess throughout the island. The States and the Constables should put that right."

"I say to Mr Lucas: if you want your job at the parish hall, we have got it back for you. Go there, take it and do a good job. Do not harp on the past for your sake, for ours and for other Parishes. Put things right as they occur."

"I asked the Constable and his officers to take back Donald and make something work. Let us look to the future and call it a day for Gods sake ."

Mr Anderson, one of the rating assessment committee, said ""The two years I had been pilloried by many friends for what I tried to do to the best of my ability. I came here to answer these charges. There is no real problem in the rating office and I'm going to bring evidence of that."

Mr Anderson said that the media had stirred up a lot of trouble and also singled out the JEP in particular.

Mr Anderson estimated that something like 10,000 rate calculations had to be made every year in a short time and the members of the assessment committee did not have the time to do it.

"We delegated this work to the staff, one to do the work and one to check it. We accepted full responsibility for the results."

He then turned to Mr Lucas and said that he had quite rightly pointed out mistakes in allowances, but he said that the main problem was a lack of communication at the parish hall and that Mr Lucas should have gone to speak to the assessment committee directly.

Turning to Mr Downer, he said, "I'm hoping sir, that under your tenure of office we're going to have improvements. You come and talk to us but we'd like to see a damm site more of you. We would like to see the Parish Secretary have a much greater knowledge of rating. We would like to see much greater general co-operation with the general office so that the letters come up more quickly."

Concluding his speech he said that St Brelade used to be a very happy parish: "If its officers who were trying to stab the Constable in the back would rally round, this will never happen again."

Then the Rector, the Reverend Michael Halliwell, stood to speak, which was quite unprecedented, as normally Rectors stayed away from the political arena, since their removal in the post-war restructuring of the States.

Michael Halliwell supported Senator Vibert's call for Parish unity, and he also said that he he had been asked why he had not made a public contribution to the discussion before. He said that "The reason is that as rector of the parish I see it is my duty to be available to anyone who may want to consult me on any private matter and to respect confidences. I've also always felt that I shall support my elected Constable."

"In 1980 I was appointed chairman of a committee set up by the Comité Paroissale to look into the matters raised in Mr Donald Lucas's original letter, but because of Mrs Johnson's legal action we had to stop our work."

The Rector said that since then the parish had had two enquiries and a legal action, but he believed that only limited progress had been made. He said that the parish, given the necessary goodwill and a spirit of co-operation now had the opportunity to put matters right and give Parishioners that trouble-free, efficient and happy administration they had the right to expect.

He told parishioners that Sir Robert's enquiry team had said the root of the problem -- but not the only cause in the Rector's view -- was the rate law, which was not designed for present-day circumstances. He said that the Constable appointed the rating officers, but they then worked for the assessment committee, over which the parish had no control.

"Do those employees report to the Constable, the parish secretary or the assessment committee? My surprise is that things worked out reasonably well for so long."

"Things have been said and done which should not have been said and done. We must remember that our employees have been under terrible pressure, and I don't want heads to roll nor do I want a witch-hunt. I want an end to the bitterness, recrimination and litigation, and I don't want anything brushed under the carpet."

The Rector also reminded parishioners that Mr Lucas' original letter was still on the table and that the original points he raised still remained.

"They are important and we cannot ignore them. As I see it they are that the law must be applied as fairly as possible and the public must be given their proper allowances, the piecemeal reassessment is wrong and should stop, and that the public should be treated at all times with courtesy."

The Rector said that in a harmonious office staff would be helpful to each other and to the public and he added that anyone who disrupted this by refusing to incorporate should be dismissed. Because it had become apparent that it was not clear who did what in the office, the Rector said that his committee were recommending that the offer of voluntary assistance from a trained management consultant should be accepted in order that the office administration be put on a proper footing. While the States could address the rating law, the administration in the Parish could also be dealt with, as that was also in need of being sorted out.

"The Consultant would produce suggestions for the Parish to consider and my hope would be that these conclusions will be made public."

"I hope that we can now all put the past behind as I look to the future and once discussion has taken place at this assembly I shall put my three propositions -- that we accept the report of the enquiry, that we call upon the States to revise as a matter of urgency the rate law now applicable, and that the management consultant will report back to Paris assembly with his findings."

After nearly 90 minutes of debate, at times heated, those present voted overwhelmingly for the peace plan put forward by the Rector.

The three propositions were formally put by the Rector and seconded by Mr Robert Parker. The vast majority of those present were in favour but 4 votes were recorded against and there were 31 recorded abstentions.

After the meeting, Constable Len Downer, who had played a largely passive role at the meeting made it clear to the media that he was determined to remain in charge of his parish. He said that if Mr Lucas went to see him he would be happy to discuss with him what his future employment should be. Mr Downer then criticised the media - particularly the Jersey Evening Post - for revealing details of the walkout at the committee meeting saying that these meetings should always be confidential.

In December 1982, the consultant reported back. The report by the management consultant Mr Frederick Ibbotson (who had given his time freely) was initially confidential for the Constable's eyes only, but the Jersey Evening Post managed to obtain a copy of it, and the news soon hit the headlines - "St Brelade Report Slams Parish Hall". The newspaper reported that:

"The consultants report on the administration of the parish of St Brelade is strongly critical of the way the parish is run. The confidential report recommends that the Constable Mr Len Downer assumes personal responsibility for leadership and control of staff in order to secure improved organisation, and to restore productive and reasonable working relationships in the Parish Hall. A parish meeting has been called tonight to consider the report's recommendations"

"Present levels of motivation and morale extremely low and deliberate effort must be made to re-establish a positive and pleasant working bar of the parish's employees."

"Mr Downer called a Parish assembly to consider the report's recommendations but it was understood that the report itself was not to be made available to parishioners."

One of the recommendations is the creation of the new post of accounts officer, to be filled by Mr Donald Lucas, the man at the centre of the parish rates row. But Mr Ibbotson criticises the cost of running the Parish Hall, and in an appendix to the report recommends a second phase of reorganisation leading to an eventual staff of only four instead of the present six. Describing the current performance of the administration he says that management and the administration of parish finances are in need of reorganisation and refinement. He reports that the auditors had expressed concern about the administration of the parish accounts. He believes that the work of the rates office and the assessors can be made more efficient.

"Methods of working, used by the administrative staff, are generally laborious and consume excessive amounts of time. Current administration costs can be reduced considerably, given proper study and analysis"

"Personnel administration in parish employment is virtually non-existent. There exist no letters of employment, no terms or conditions of employment, no job descriptions or records, no salary structure, no authorised sickness or vacation policy. These and other deficiencies must be corrected immediately."

Mr Ibbotson says that administrative procedures and practices can be improved and made much more cost-effective in the future by the application of sophisticated equipment and technology. He even criticises the Parish Hall furniture saying that much of the furniture would be unacceptable to employees of a commercial establishment. If the recommendations are approved the parish would be run by the parish secretary, the council officer, rates administration officer, assistant accounts officer, assistant rates administration officer and clerk.

When the Parish assembly took place a few days later, there was an overwhelming vote in favour of accepting the consultants report on the administration of the parish.

But there was also strong criticism of the Jersey Evening Post, both from the floor and from the Constable of St Brelade, Mr Len Downer, for its publication of details of the report before parishioners were able to discuss it.

At one stage Mr Downer referred to the JEP's article as "a lot of rubbish" claiming that it was based on a preliminary draft of the report. However, after the meeting, he was able to point to only one minor item concerning staffing that he would positively say have been changed in the final version of the report.

The meeting began with the Constable explaining that a select committee, comprising Senators Ralph Vibert and Dick Shenton, Deputy Enid Quenault and the Rector, the Reverend Michael Halliwell, had accepted the consultants findings and recommendations that he too was very pleased with it.

The report's compiler, management consultant Mr Frederick Ibbotson then outlined his findings and the plans he suggested for the future. He began by saying that his work had been carried out with the co-operation of the parish staff and that he had rarely worked in a more amicable atmosphere. His approach had been positive and constructive and he had not taken long to identify problem areas.

He briefly described antiquated methods of office procedure, the poor physical environment of the Parish Hall, the need for an accounts officer and the necessity of reducing the workload of the parish secretary. He also said that the report had concluded there should be an assistant
accounts officer and a clerk in the general office and the number of staff should be six, the number present employed. It was not within his brief, he said, to suggest who should fill the post mentioned.

"There has been certain publicity assigned to this assignment which has made my job more difficult. I hope this evening will mark an end of it."

Mr Downer reported that the Jersey Evening Post had access only to preliminary draft and made the allegation that rubbish had been printed. He also said that parishioners who had wanted to see the text of the report before the meeting had been given an opportunity to look at it.

Advocate John Cridland agreed that it was wrong that the report should be leaked, but he wanted an assurance that it would be freely available for examination. But Mr Downer replied that only two spare copies were available and that people would be welcome to come to the parish hall to see them. He added that he had not wanted to put the full report in the JEP.

Mr Dave Cashell, a parishioner who had voiced his opinion in every meeting concerned with the problems that have affected the parish in recent years also spoke. He asked how they could be unity among the parish hall employers when three entirely separate departments were to be set up, and why there should be a lapse of three years before parish manager takes control of administration, adding we should get the right man for the job now. He summarised his view by saying "we should get on with reorganising this parish which has been a bit of a jumble, hasn't it?"

Mr Ibbotson replied that the proposed post was not an additional job to be filled at once, adding "I do not want to diminish the Parish Secretary's status." In addition he said that he'd not been able to allow the parish schisms of the past few years to influence his judgement though since he could not felt to know with them he had had to adopt a rather schizophrenic attitude.

"Bad organisation has been responsible for much of the bad feeling", he concluded. "Quite a lot of the fuss over the past years was about a rating system and not about the administration of it".

This point was taken up by the rector who said that an administration that was badly in need of updating has caused difficulties because of this, compounding the problem.

On the proposition that Mr Robert Parker the meeting decided overwhelmingly the recommendation of acceptance of the report by the select committee that it should be adopted.

The implementation of the report meant more standardisation and unification of rating procedures and an avoidance of the piecemeal approach which had been taken previously.

As well as this, the parishioners had also been aware that the States themselves were considering the problems of anomalies and muddles over an ancient rating law that had not been designed for large 20th-century parishes, and for a period of considerable property inflation. This meant that part of the problem over rates, and re-assessments, was to be considered elsewhere, and not at the meeting, or as Len Downer put it "we are not talking about rates tonight".

However, while this had settled the immediate divisions within the parish, underneath, there was still a lot of resentment about the way in which Mr Downer, the Constable, had conducted matters; Parishioners still grumbled about how he had behaved unjustly towards Donald Lucas, who never did get his post back, and about his high-handed attitude.

There was no opposition in 1984, as Alf Vibert had failed to be elected in 1981 by a considerable margin, and no one else was coming forth. It has to be remembered that in those days, Constables were largely elected from the ranks of the Centeniers or Municipality (such as the Procurer du Bien Publique) within the Parish, although a trend was beginning whereby Deputies would seek the post. Outsiders from the political arena or the Municipality never stood! Contested elections were rare - the 1981 example being the first contested election in St Brelade in 142 years!!

So Len Downer was re-elected by default, but in 1987, when the position of Constable came up for election, the much admired Parish Deputy, Enid Quenault, decided to stand for election on a platform of "healing the divisions" that still existed (albeit unsaid) within the parish

Mr Downer was considering whether to stand against her, and at first was of the opinion that he should make a fight of it. However, when he met his principal supporters at a private meeting at the Pisces Gym, they told him - one by one - that if he stood, he would suffer a humiliating defeat because many parishioners still resented the way he had handled the Donald Lucas affair, and his high-handed attitude of being right.

After this meeting, rather like Mrs Thatcher was to do in years to come, he decided that he would not stand again. And indeed, in 1987, Deputy Quenault was elected to be the first woman constable of St Brelade, and in doing so, she ensured that the festering resentment which still had remained within the Parish was finally laid to rest. And Mrs Olga Johnson left her job at the Parish Hall, although not entirely Parish concerns, as in 2008 she signed the nomination paper for Mervyn Le Masurier.

So, finally, ended the affair of the divided Parish.

St Brelade's has never seen such fiery Parish meetings since.

References
1982 J.J. 67, Transcript of Johnson V Lucas, Jersey Law Reports
Jersey Evening Post Almanac
Jersey Evening Post

A Divided Parish - Part 3

On January 19th, 1982, the culmination came of a court case which had caused great divisions in St Brelade's Parish. Mrs Olga Johnson, Rating Officer at the Parish Hall, sued Mr Donald Lucas, former Assistant Rating Officer for defamation.

The case was thrown out, and Mr Lucas was thereby vindicated in the actions he had taken. Nevertheless, the new Constable, Len Downer, who had sacked Mr Lucas, refused to reinstate him. This, and the rates fiasco which the Court case revealed, was going to cause stormy Parish meetings over the coming year in which Mr Downer showed himself to be completely out of his depth, and tended to make matters even worse for himself by assembling a cohort of supporters against his own parishioners, thus polarising matters even more, as he retreated into a fortress mentality.

The new Assessment Committee which had been elected in 1980, (Mr. Benest, Mr Daubeney, Mr Binnington, Mr Anderson and Mr Jackson) also came under fire for their part in the affair.

This is the third part of the story...

Although Donald Lucas had not been in the same room as the assessors, since Mrs Olga Johnson had managed to get him moved to another room, he was still privy to the deliberations of the assessors, but now filtered through the voice of Mrs Johnson. A largely new team of assessors had been appointed and after they had met, Mrs Johnson came with a "decree" that the assessors had decided that no assessment would go out under £25 (which would be around £66 today). So if a small strip of land would have been assessed with a lower rental value, the calculation would be £25 instead. Mrs Johnson told Mr Lucas that "they agree it costs too much to send these small accounts."

Donald Lucas saw that this was essentially making a charge for collecting the rates, and although he could not find anything in the rates law which allowed a charge to be made for collection, or a minimum value to be fixed, he did as he was asked, especially as he was pressured to do so by Mrs Johnson. All Schedules declaring land were assessed on the new ruling, even where only ½ a vergee or less was declared.

It was like saying that if someone's income tax came to £10, the tax office would nevertheless send out an assessment for £25, on the grounds that it cost too much to process a bill of just £10. In fact, it was not only not in the rates law, it was also quite illegal, and it is a measure of how inept the new rating committee was at administering the law. Despite being businessmen of some standing in the community, they were clearly out of their depth, and thought they could simply make up rating procedures as they chose.

But when Mrs. Johnson arrived at Centenier Alf Vibert's Schedule, suddenly an exemption was made. She changed the method in which the assessment was to take place. Donald Lucas described this to the Court:

She suggested to me, half heartedly, 'Fred hasn't got much land, has he?' Knowing immediately what she had in mind I replied 'Oh yes he has a fair amount between one and two vergees I would say'. 'Oh' she replied, 'he hasn't very much, the house and land can go together!' I relate all this because it is of considerable importance in my certain belief that to avoid confrontation on this matter with Mr. Vibert the rates on his land were cancelled completely rather than be put at £25 A.R.V. Mr. Vibert has a very considerable knowledge of the rating law and how to apply it and there was no way Mrs. Johnson was allowing her pet scheme to fall on his plate. You may think Sir, that I am suggesting that Mrs. Johnson was being devious: I make no apology for allowing you to come to that conclusion.

In fact, Centenier Alf Vibert had been a former member of the St. Brelade Assessment Committee and - as Donald Lucas had said - was very knowledgeable about the Rating Law in Jersey. He had between one and two vergees of land separate from his house, and Mrs Johnson had decided to assess the Centenier's land and house together, whereas other owners with far less land than Mr. Vibert had been assessed at £25. Had his land been assessed separately, he would have faced a liability on £6 per vergee rental value, making a total liability on about £12 rental value. If the policy of increasing the liability to a minimum level of £25 had been applied, the liability would have been double what was properly due. Instead the Mrs Johnson assessed the land and the house together, with the result that the land and the house together were assessed at the same figure as the previous year for the house alone and the land was effectually omitted altogether save in name.

Donald Lucas argued for the Court to infer that Mrs Johnson's motive in this sudden and abrupt change in stated police was "to avoid a confrontation with a man who was knowledgeable about Rating Law over a practice which she knew to be unjustifiable."

The Committee also saw to cover their tracks with a minute in which they pretended that they did not know Mr Vibert's property at all:

"Mr. Vibert's Schedule does not give land measurements is it a garden, agricultural or building land? It is assumed there is a guest house, private house and flat. Name of occupiers not given for flat. Correct details must be given 1981, this ruling has also been given by the Supervisory Committee".

In fact, however, this was completely untrue, as Mr Vibert gave evidence in Court:

Mr. Vibert said that Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Daubeney and Mr. Benest knew his property well. Mrs. Johnson had known Mr. Vibert some time before her husband's death. Even allowing for some inconsistencies in the filling up of his Schedule, we find the minute of the 1st May 1980 quite inexplicable, and in direct conflict with the evidence, certainly of Mr. Vibert himself and which was not challenged. Even Mrs. Johnson admitted she might have made some such remark as Mr. Lucas said she did about Mr. Vibert's land. We accept Mr. Lucas' evidence unreservedly on this point.

It was also noted that on 10th January, 1980, the Supervisory Committee had sent a letter to the Constable through its Secretary. In this, the references concerning land show that this Committee was unaware of the novel and newly invented £25 policy, and they ruled that the land (where there was no property) should be assessed on the basis of £6 a vergee with £3 a vergee for meadow-land. It was clear that that this letter had been passed to Mrs. Johnson because her writing appeared on the copy that was presented to the Court, but there was no mention of this directive in the minutes of the Assessment Committee of that letter as such.

The Court thought it likely that Mrs Johnson had omitted to bring it to the Assessment Committee's attention. The result, as proven by schedules were that a number of properties with land were assessed at £25 where they should have been assessed for less.

The Court also noted that her high-handed attitude to any rate payers who queried their assessment, either because of the £25 minimum rate levied, or because of the gradual and uneven progression of re-assessing ratable value of properties in the Parish. This had given rise to some Parishioners facing extortionate rises of 180% or more, because they had been re-assessed first, while others, who were not likely to have their properties re-assessed until four years later, were just paying an extra 10%. Mrs Johnson did not attempt to explain why the rates had risen, because this would have exposed the complete shambles that the re-assessment was creating over the Parish.

As regards her attitude to ratepayers who objected to or enquired about the assessments we do not feel it necessary for us to say more than that some of Mrs. Johnson's replies to enquiries might have been more helpful and explicit. The quoting of the Law in extenso is of little assistance to somebody asking why his or her rates have been increased.

After some difficulty, Advocate Fiott was able to extract from the Supervisory Committee the information that a total of fifty-seven objections had been received against their assessments by ratepayers for St. Brelade in 1980... It was apparent, therefore, that in 1980, there was a considerable increase in the number of dissatisfied ratepayers over the two previous years, but particularly compared with 1979.

The Court finally ruled on whether there had been defamation of Mrs Johnson, or whether Mr Lucas had made a valid case:

From the evidence of his witnesses, as well as from some of the plaintiff's witnesses and after considering the defendant's own evidence, particularly his general demeanour and attitude in the witness box, we accept that he is an honest man who would not make assertions he did not truly believe in. As he told us he had a fanaticism for the truth; this we can well accept. It is true that that might make his vision somewhat narrow; it may lead him to be intolerant but that does not make him a deliberate liar.

It follows that we may now answer the question as to whether the plaintiff, on a balance of probabilities, has proved that the defendant when he wrote the letter on an occasion of qualified privilege was acting from malice. We answer that question in the negative. Accordingly, the defendant is discharged from the action.

But the case had brought to light the fact that both Mrs Johnson and the Committee had been inconsistent and incompetent in the matter of assessing Parish rates, both with the strategy of a four year re-assessment of properties, and with the creative amendments to the rating law over the £25 minimum charge on land.

The arrogance of the Committee was also particularly apparent in some of the stories told by witnesses in Court, and reported in the Jersey Evening Post. On example cited as of how one ratepayer told how she had gone to see the Committee, not to make a complaint, but simply to establish how the rates were assessed so that she could consider whether she had grounds for an appeal. Rather than explaining how the rates were assessed, the Rate Assessment Committee simply burst out laughing and dismissed her out of hand.

So there were two problems facing the Parish.

One was that the Court case had largely exonerated Donald Lucas, and there was a growing body of Parishioners who thought that he had been dealt with unjustly by the Constable, and should be reinstated. Far from showing him to be mistaken, the Court case had publically exposed malpractice with regard to rating assessments. Donald Lucas was a whistleblower who had been unfairly treated, and it was not right that he had been sacked.

And this was the other matter - the total shambles of the policy on how the rate assessments in general were being done, and how the revaluation of rate assessments was proceeding, leading to some people getting rises of 180% and others 10% because it was taking so long.

This was to lead to some of the noisiest and most vociferous Parish Assemblies that St Brelade had ever seen. These Assemblies had to be held at the School hall at Quennevais School - and these were packed out - because there simply was not enough room for everyone at the Parish Hall. Such was the anger felt by the general public.

Len Downer was to survive as Constable, but his intransigence and inability to admit he could have made mistakes led to a his losing the trust of most of the electorate, and as the storm broke, a surprising figure would emerge as peacemaker, and suggest realistic solutions to restore faith and trust of the Parishioners.

Part 4 will come next week....

References
1982 J.J. 67, Transcript of Johnson V Lucas, Jersey Law Reports
Jersey Evening Post Almanac
Jersey Evening Post

A Divided Parish - Part 2

On January 19th, 1982, the culmination came of a court case which had caused great divisions in St Brelade's Parish. Mrs Olga Johnson, Rating Officer at the Parish Hall, sued Mr Donald Lucas, former Assistant Rating Officer for defamation.

The case was thrown out, and Mr Lucas was thereby vindicated in the actions he had taken. Nevertheless, the new Constable, Len Downer, who had sacked Mr Lucas, refused to reinstate him. This, and the rates fiasco which the Court case revealed, was going to cause stormy Parish meetings over the coming year in which Mr Downer showed himself to be completely out of his depth, and tended to make matters worse by assembling a cohort of supporters against his own parishioners, thus polarising matters even more.

As part 1 of the narrative revealed, this legal case concerned complaints made by Mr Lucas against Mrs Johnson, concerning the inconsistent and unjust way in which Parish rates were being assessed, which had also led to a significant rise in the number of appeals, and prompted Mr Lucas to write a strongly worded letter in which he gave a number of examples of bad, inconsistent and unjust rating assessments. This letter was, on the basis of a verbal conversation with the Constable, for the eyes of the Supervisory Committee only.

However, the Parish Secretary, Mr. L. Le Brocq, on the instruction of the Constable, had some more copies made so that, eventually, it was seen not only by the Supervisory Committee, the 'Comité Paroissiale' and also by the members of the Assessment Committee and Mrs. Johnson. The Constable, Mr Max de La Haye (senior) had made an extremely poor judgement, because the letter was was given to the very people who should have been kept away from the matter until an investigation had been made. What is more, he had betrayed the firm request of Mr Lucas that it was to be a letter for the Supervisory Committee to consider alone, and not for third parties.

From all accounts, Mrs Johnson was a forceful woman, and not one to take matters lightly. Instead of countering the claims made by Mr Lucas, and backing up her case with witnesses and documentation, she went for a much more direct route, and one that appeared to destroy Mr Lucas credibility. This put the onus upon him having to defend himself, rather than her having to defend herself against his criticisms.

A few days after seeing the copy of the letter, and without giving him he opportunity to explain or apologise to her, she instituted an action against him for defamation!

After this, some action had to be taken by the Constable. Mr de La Haye had retired, and the new Constable was Len Downer, a newsagent in St Aubin. In January, 1981, Mr Downer had suspended both Mrs Johnson and Mr Lucas for three months, to have a breathing space to decide what action to take.

However, rather from instituting an investigation to discover whether Mr Lucas' accusations had any merit, Len Downer decided to reinstate Mrs Johnson in April.

Donald Lucas, in the meantime, was having difficulties in securing the documentary material to support his case. Away from the Parish Hall, he found that Mr Downer was extremely uncooperative in providing this, and he had to seek the help of the Royal Court to obtain papers such as the Schedules and Rating Cards together with the correspondence relating to them.

These should have been made available to him without seeking the redress of the Court, and this intransigence demonstrated that Mr Downer had already decided that Mr Lucas' claims were not correct, and he was himself supporting Mrs Johnson. Again, this was poor judgment on the part of Len Downer, as the substance of Mr Lucas claims were now to be assessed in Court, and if they vindicated his letter, this would leave the Constable backed into a corner for prematurely taking sides. Throughout this period, Mr Downer showed a lamentable lack of understanding of Mr Lucas rights.

Because Mr Lucas had needed to seek the Courts to obtain documents which he should have been given copies of anyway (as the Court itself admonished), Mr Downer took that as a personal affront, and told the Parish Secretary that he simply could not employ Mr Lucas again because he had taken him to Court. Conferring with the Parish Secretary probably confirmed his own prejudices, because Mr Le Brocq, the Secretary did not appear to have much sympathy for Mr Lucas.

Indeed, when Mr Lucas had raised these matters with Mr Le Brocq, Mr Le Brocq had simply taken Mrs Johnson's side rather than pursuing a more diplomatic approach of getting all parties together, such as Mrs. Johnson and the Assessment Committee, to resolve matters.

The case was heard before the Bailiff, Sir Peter Crill, with Advocate F.C. Hamon appearing for the plaintiff, Mrs Olga Johnson, and Advocate Geoffrey Fiott for the defendant, Donald Lucas.

Donald Lucas denied that the letter was defamatory and argued in his defence that it was published on an occasion of qualified privilege and pleaded justification and fair comment.

He also argued that the documentation supported other anecdotal evidence which he had seen, and which had also been seen by other witnesses, and this had changed his attitude to Mrs Johnson, because as a result he could no longer trust what she told him about rating matters.

Some were trivial in themselves, but cumulatively built up a picture of Mrs Johnson's character, and how she dealt with rating matters and the general public on these issues. One example which Mr Lucas cited was when he had seen her put down the telephone on a woman caller. When this had reached the ears of Constable Max de la Haye, she had denied doing so. The Constable remembered the incident.

His attitude changed towards her so that he no longer trusted what she told him about rating matters after he had heard her deny to the Constable that she had put the telephone receiver down on a woman caller. Mr. de la Haye remembered the incident. There was a conflict of evidence on this point between the plaintiff and the defendant. The woman caller was not called. We accept the defendant's evidence on this matter.

The Court found that there was a major flaw in how the rates can been assessed, where the task of doing the computations delegated to Mrs Johnson. The Assessors were professional businessmen, but they were not as acquainted with the law as Mrs Johnson. In 1980 four new members had joined the Assessment committee. As complete novices to assessing the rates, they tended to rely on Mrs Johnson for guidance. And shortly before 1980, at the request of the Assessment Committee, she had been asked to to fill in and complete the computations. This had given her an an opportunity, if she so wished, perhaps unwittingly, to lean in favour of the Parish, especially given the inexperience of the new Committee.

The Committee, too, was uncertain how to assess rates properly regards company owned properties, and was seeking an interview with the Supervisory Committee to discuss this and other queries. As this took a very long time to arrange, the Committee was bound to rely on the Mrs Johnson's experience of rating.

Donald Lucas had been excluded from the assessment room, and could only infer what was happening from the Schedules themselves (now written up in Mrs Johnson's hand), from what he himself heard and saw.

He had personally observed what appeared to be a violation of the law. One member of the Assessment Committee, when looking through the appeals which lay on Mrs. Johnson's desk remarked "Of course this one has to be assessed on his business and his turnover". Mr Lucas noted that: "There was no intervention or comment from Mrs. Johnson on his remark and therefore this gentleman at least, has been assessing business premises on this basis which Mrs. Johnson knows as well as I do is not permissible under the law . . . but of course it is one way of bringing in more Qtrs!!!"

One of the new members since 1980, Mr Philip Daubeney rejected Mr Lucas claims, and told the Court that it was rubbish to suggest that Mrs Johnson had told the Assessment Committee how to do its job, although he did agree that the Committee asked her for her views and respected her experience.

It is curious that Mr Daubeney had not confronted Mr Lucas with this same argument when he had been privy to the interview between Mr Lucas and the Constable, just before Mr Lucas penned his letter, but on the contrary, seems to have been supportive of Mr Lucas at the time. Why had he appeared to change his mind? It certainly appears that he was determined to support the new Constable, Len Downer, and discredit Mr Lucas testimony by providing his own. Or perhaps, he also thought that it reflected badly on the Committee that they had delegated work, and not provided adequate oversight.

But unfortunately, Minutes had been kept, and they showed significant variance with what Mr Daubeney was saying, and the Court noted the inconsistency. The Minutes for 20th February said:

The New Committee do not think they should complete the Property Schedules, just make an assessment on all properties to be assessed in 1980. If more staff is needed it would then be for the Constable to see that extra staff is employed for the clerical work, which seemed to increase each year."

That entry is confirmed by that of the 27th March, which is as follows:

"The Committee feels that the Rating Officer should be given more help with correspondence etc., especially now that Schedules have to be completed by the Rating Officer after having been assessed by the Assessment Committee."

This the Court saw as a clear delegation of power to Mrs Johnson from the Committee, contradicting (and pre-dating) Philip Daubeney's statement, which now seemed to have no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Against the suggestion that she deliberately made errors, the Court was, however, of the belief that she may have been overburdened by the extra work, and even taken some of it home because of time pressures. As a consequence, they suggested that she might have overlooked some items in her computations and made a number of entries which seemed to Mr. Lucas to be totally wrong. They were taking the most charitable view of the mistakes made.

The record, as well, supported Donald Lucas interpretation of events, rather than Philip Daubeney, and not just the minutes, but another member of the Assessment Committee, Mr Anderson, gave evidence which directly contradicted his narrative.

Mr. Daubeney said that the Assessment Committee made the calculations, and Mrs. Johnson merely filled in the forms, that is to say the computations, and these were agreed by all the members of the Assessment Committee. Mr. Anderson on the other hand said that Mrs. Johnson was left to work out the figures and that the Assessment Committee did not go into "terrific details".

The Court also took evidence from Mr Benest, the only existing member who was not new to the 1980 Assessment Committee. He said that Mrs. Johnson knew exactly what to do, and this - together with the other evidence - caused a re-assessment of Mrs Johnson by the Court.

We think also that this was true. Mr. Le Breton said that if Mrs. Johnson altered the Schedules (that is made up computations in a way that did not reflect the rentals assessed by the Committee) she must have had the Authority of the Assessment Committee to do so. If this is so there is no record of such later approval in the minutes. He agreed that the plaintiff had used words referring to the rating situation as "a mess" and that she had to "put it right". All this points to a very clear delegation of power, certainly in 1980 and to a lesser extent in the previous years to the Rating Officer, Mrs. Johnson. She is not and, was not we think at the relevant time, as unassuming as her demeanour in the witness box might otherwise have implied. In our opinion, contrary to what she told us, she did not just sit there and do as she was told.

Part 3 to follow next week....

References
1982 J.J. 67, Transcript of Johnson V Lucas, Jersey Law Reports.

A Divided Parish - Part 1

On January 19th, 1982, the culmination came of a court case which had caused great divisions in St Brelade's Parish. Mrs Olga Johnson, Rating Officer at the Parish Hall, sued Mr Donald Lucas, former Assistant Rating Officer for defamation.

The case was thrown out, and Mr Lucas was thereby vindicated in the actions he had taken. Nevertheless, the Constable, Len Downer, who had sacked Mr Lucas, refused to reinstate him.

But what had happened, and why had it caused so much upset in the Parish?

In a large Parish, such as St Brelade, the task of the Rating Assessment Committee had changed as the Parish had grown. It had been the duty of the Committee to carry out personally, not only all the calculations to arrive at a proper rateable assessment of each person liable to pay rates, but also the attendant clerical work. This burden was clearly too onerous for what was, essentially, a honorary position. So the Parish employed two paid staff who would report to the Committee - the the Rating Officer and the Assistant Rating Officer. Neither held any executive power, but they would carry out the attendant clerical work which the Committee had found tedious and time consuming, as well as the formal assessment of properties. They would then report to the Committee with their recommendations.

In February 1974, Mrs Olga Johnson joined the staff of the Parish Hall as a a clerical assistant in the rating office.. In 1975, the post of Rating Officer became vacant and both she and Mr Donald Lucas applied for it. She ended up getting the position, and he got the position of Assistant Officer. The working relationship between them seemed to have been good at that time. They both worked in a room on the first floor where the Assessment Committee met.

But in 1980, Mr. Lucas was asked to move out to an adjacent room on the same floor, so that he no longer had the same level of access to the Assessment Committee, leaving Mrs Johnson alone in that position. When properties were being assessed, one of his main duties was to transfer the details of the assessments from the Schedules on to cards and from the cards into the final filing system where eventually the items would be bound. But as he did this, he discovered that it appeared that she was beginning to fill in some of the details on the right hand side of the Schedules in the part reserved for the use of the Assessment Committee. He wondered if she was, in fact, exercising too great an influence on the Assessment Committee.

Mr Lucas thought that it was likely, as far as he could determine, that some of computations on rates were being worked out by Mrs. Johnson to the detriment of some rate payers who were not being given all the statutory allowances to which they were entitled. There were a number of inconsistencies between how different properties were assessed, and he did not see this as fair or just, but when he had raised the matter with Mrs Johnson, she had told him, in no uncertain terms, "that's the way it has to be done", with no discussion of the matter.

But there was another problem. Although a start had been made some years previously to re-assess each property in the Parish, the system of doing so was piecemeal and this was inequitable to those persons whose properties were assessed first. The delay of several years before similar properties in the Parish, and in some cases adjacent to the newly assessed ones, were dealt with meant that some ratepayers were carrying too high a proportion of the rates although temporarily. Moreover, in making the re-assessment, Mrs Johnson appeared to follow some rules for some properties, and other, inconsistent ones, for others.

Both of these matters resulted in a very high number of appeals, and Mr Lucas was very concerned. As he saw it, rates should be levied with equity in relation to the rental value of the land we own or occupy and in accordance with the law. But from what he could see happening, there seemed to be two laws operating in St Brelade "one enacted by the States of Jersey and one according to Mrs. Johnson."

As Mrs Johnson was clearly not amenable to any discussion on the matter, he sought an interview with the Constable, Mr. de la Haye, who was the de facto head of the Parish Administration. He had gone to see the Constable to tell him what he believed was happening in the rating office as regards Mrs. Johnson and the assessments but, following a conversation between the Constable and Mr. Philip Daubeney, one of the assessors elected in 1980, he was asked to put what he was going to say in writing. He agreed to do this, and also that that the members of the Supervisory Committee might see the letter on condition that the copies made for that purpose were returned to him.

On 28 June 1980, the letter was submitted to the Constable. Unfortunately, Donald Lucas had failed to put "Private and Confidential" on the letter, and it was this which was to lead to the Court case against him.

What were his complaints? Here, from his letter, are some of the main points:

It was agreed that the whole Parish be re-assessed. Not by a percentage as everyone would expect but by re-assessing each house one at a time and doing a section of the Parish each year. This I thought to be most unjust and contrary to the spirit of the law. Some of these re-assessments were staggering in their size. One or two were appealed against but the majority said nothing. Others who inquired about the large increase were misled into accepting by such remarks from the Rating Officer as, 'You haven't had an increase for a long time' or if the rate payer asked if all in the Parish had been treated equally would be told '. . . you cannot expect five men who give up their time to do this job and are sworn in by the Royal Court, to do all the Parish in one year'. I must have heard that last remark at least 500 times. I agree it cannot be done in one year using that stupid and unjust method.

One gentleman who came to see me when Mrs. Johnson was on holiday complained of having to pay 180% more than the year before. This man, a Chartered Accountant, asked me this question '. . . Where has all the money gone?' I knew immediately what he meant. Totally convinced, and justifiably so, that everyone was being treated in similar fashion, he assumed that the Parish income would increase by approx. 180%. He continued, 'Your audited accounts do not show that figure so where has it gone?', and before I could say another word he stormed out of the room. The actual increase in Parish expenditure that year was in the region of 17½%.

What is the result of all this? It means that rate payers re-assessed in the first year have been paying a surcharge of, in some cases, 100% for four years until the final section of the Parish was re-assessed which was supposed to be this year but is still not complete. Mrs. Johnson says all properties not visited this year but which have had what she describes as a nominal 10% put on this year will be visited next year to be re-assessed properly. I have never in my life been connected or involved with something more unprofessional or indeed unjust and contrary to the spirit of the law..

Suppose the States agreed to increase income tax from the present 20% to say 30% but the Comptroller of Income Tax decreed that he would, starting from next year, apply the new rate to each Parish in turn, taking six years to complete the operation, what would be the result, besides anarchy? It would be deemed illegal, yet that is what has happened in this Parish during the last four years. To say that it could not be achieved in one year (supposing that it needs to be done at all) is no argument.

I now come to the broad details of matters that are causing me great concern where the public are being treated in an inequitable way and in many cases are being denied their rights to deductions according to law. As a result some rate payers will be asked to pay anything from £1 to hundreds of pounds more than they are required by law. These are not clerical errors, there are dozens and dozens of such cases. In many cases swimming pools are rated as a separate item and are not given a deduction for repairs and there are perhaps as many cases where House & Pool are one item which means the pool will have 50% off. Both cannot be correct. In the case of land the anomalies are so numerous I could not begin to detail all on paper.

He then proceeded to give several examples of how this worked out in practice, and highlighted, in particular, how this meant that in the case of small areas of land, the position was of "some rate payers paying 25 Qrs. for small areas of land, some paying none and some paying as last year, which could mean anything! The position is so confusing it makes nonsense of the law."

There were clear grounds for complaint, and Mr Lucas also gave anecdotal examples of Mrs Johnson's high-handed attitude, and how some members of the Assessment Committee had also made assessments on an ad hoc basis, not by the rating law, and Mrs Johnson had colluded with that. He thought, no doubt, that the Supervisory Committee would be examining the cases which he cited, and considering how the system was being applied unjustly.

However, the Parish Secretary, Mr. L. Le Brocq, on the instruction of the Constable, had some more copies made so that, eventually, it was seen not only by the Supervisory Committee, the 'Comité Paroissiale' and also by the members of the Assessment Committee and Mrs. Johnson. This was clearly not what Mr Lucas had intended after his talk to the Constable, but the verbal agreement that the Supervisory Committee alone would see the letter was ignored. Instead it was given to the very people who should have been kept away from the matter until an investigation had been made.

From all accounts, Mrs Johnson was a forceful woman, and not one to take matters lightly. Instead of countering the claims made by Mr Lucas, and backing up her case with witnesses and documentation, she went for a much more direct route, and one that appeared to destroy the credibility of Mr Lucas. This put the onus upon him having to defend himself, rather than her having to defend herself against his criticisms. A few days after seeing the copy of the letter, she instituted an action against him for defamation!

Part 2 will come next week....

References
1982 J.J. 67, Transcript of Johnson V Lucas, Jersey Law Reports.