Select a region
There are rumblings among States Members about a fresh vote of no confidence against the Chief Minister after it was revealed that the Government’s former CEO received a £500,000 pay-off - but it's unclear who will pull the trigger.
Senator Kristina Moore – who proposed the last vote in November following the initial revelations about Charlie Parker’s second job and subsequent announcement of his premature departure – has said she will not repeat the exercise this time.
Other politicians have said they are assessing the lie of the land before deciding if a second vote is winnable.
Under rules governing the running of the States Assembly, a vote of no confidence cannot be held within six months following an unsuccessful one. However, that period elapsed earlier this month.
Pictured: It has now been more than six months since the last vote of no confidence in the Chief Minister's leadership.
Senator Moore, who leads a committee of Scrutiny panel heads, said she would “obviously” support another vote against the Chief Minister John Le Fondré, if one was proposed.
“My view has not changed, and it is important that Members whose views might have changed since the November vote of no confidence take appropriate action, and I will obviously support them,” she said. “Those who rejected the vote of no confidence have to consider why they did that and what their rationale was.
“I believe that a number of people who voted against it last year actually did support my proposition but, for various reasons, could not back it on the day.”
The chief Scrutineer and former minister added that a complaint made against her by Senator Le Fondré over comments she had made about Mr Parker had impacted her ability to speak out.
“I do feel constrained because I had a complaint made against me to the Commissioner of Standards, which was referenced in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (C&AG) report. Of course, the Commissioner confirmed I had not broken the rules but the very threat of legal action against Members who raise valid points will dissuade people from speaking their minds.”
However, she added: “The Chief Minister is holding onto the CAG’s view that the pay-out was not unreasonable, but he and the States Employment Board created this situation themselves and they are responsible for it.”
Pictured: Mr Parker signed off a media statement saying that the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister approved his second job, when the latter in fact had not.
And on the lack of disciplinary process for the CEO, which was raised as a concern by the CAG, Senator Moore said: “Throughout this term of government, the Corporate Services Panel has been consistently asking about the need to have a disciplinary process for the CEO, which hasn’t been introduced.
“Initially, the Government prevaricated and then told us it was terribly complicated. Then the pandemic hit, and that became the reason for nothing happening. The head of the Appointments Commission has said it’s not needed but, legally, P1 [a States proposition relating to the structure of Government, ed.] says it has to be done. This is clearly an accountability issue.”
Other States Members have also criticised the former CEO’s pay-out.
Senator Steve Pallett and Deputy Steve Luce, both members of the Progress Party, issued a joint statement which called for the Chief Minister to apologise to Islanders:
“While a significant severance payment in respect of any former Chief Executive Officer should have been expected, it is disappointing, to say the very least, that £500,000 of taxpayers' money has had to be spent in this way,” they said.
“This is against the backdrop of the Chief Minister - having received professional advice - making reassuring noises that nothing would be paid beyond Mr Parker's contractual entitlement.
“Furthermore, it seems to have been conveniently overlooked that it is only because Mr Parker, while Chief Executive, was ‘given permission’ by the Chief Minster to take the directorship at New River that we are in this situation.
“It is also disappointing that the Chief Minister has not accepted full responsibility for what has happened, a situation made worse by comments that went out from [the States Employment Board (SEB)] shortly after the news about Mr Parker broke.
“The Chief Minister is also responsible for SEB, and the reasons for a severance payment of half-a-million pounds sit very clearly with him.
“Notwithstanding the fact that the Chief Minster ‘gave permission’, there have been other shortcomings around this whole affair, not least the fact that the Treasury was not consulted over the severance payment. This ‘oversight’ is also unacceptable.
“We must also hope that all the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General about proper controls and adherence to proper procedures are not overlooked yet again.
“Mr Parker could still be working for us. We must not also forget that, on top of the £500,000 tax free payment, we are also now funding an Interim CEO position. This whole episode reflects badly on our Island and is to be greatly regretted.
“A full apology from the Chief Minister is the very least that taxpayers deserve.”
Meanwhile, having yesterday called for ‘heads to roll’ over the matter, Reform Jersey leader Senator Sam Mézec added: “Our position remains that we have no confidence in the Chief Minister. How that moves forward, however, will depend on discussions with other States Members in the days ahead.
“I think the singular mistake that the Chief Minister made was to give verbal agreement to the CEO having his second job. After that, any decision taken by the SEB or the Council of Ministers was going to cause legal trouble.
“It was act of complacency and poor judgment. I was in the first Council of Ministers’ meeting after this had blown up and most of us were clearly against the Chief Executive taking another job. The root of this mess is the Chief Minister’s inability to understand the consequences of what he was agreeing to.”
Reform Jersey statement on the £500k ‘Golden Handshake’ for the former CEO. pic.twitter.com/fWR2QN0AMx
— Reform Jersey (@ReformJersey) May 20, 2021
St. John Constable Andy Jéhan, who was not a States Member at the time of the last vote of no confidence, said he looked forward to the Public Accounts Committee’s promised review of the whole process.
“I would have expected the CEO to have been suspended, as a neutral act, as soon as a potential gross misconduct was identified while an investigation was carried out,” he said.
“I was particularly shocked by the news that the CEO was working within the organisation without a contract for seven days - that was surprising and very strange. I’m also surprised that there was no letter of instruction requested by the Treasurer or whichever senior officer signed off the £500,000 payment. I would have expected to have seen one of those.
“And I find it incredible that the CEO got two years’ salary for a potential unfair dismissal claim. Most people would be lucky to receive a few weeks’ salary for three years’ work. Overall, I am very disappointed that we have not learned from previous lessons.”
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.