Select a region
This is not the story of a man that pulled off a £500,000 coup – but a Government that walked into a crisis which almost toppled the Chief Minister, with its eyes wide open.
When he took on Jersey’s top job, Charlie Parker found himself in a position of unprecedented power combined with a not-fit-for-purpose disciplinary process.
Just two years earlier, the then-CEO John Richardson had already survived a bid by Deputy Tracey Vallois to fix the “dysfunctional” States by cancelling his contract extension, in no small part thanks to the support of former Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst.
But by 2017 the winds of change were blowing and the civil servant of 35 years was given a pay-off in exchange for his early departure in November.
In swept Charlie Parker – an established driver of ‘transformation’ in leading roles at the councils of Oldham, Manchester City and Westminster – who was quick to sense the mood.
Citing departments that were “fiefdoms in law”, with an overall “siloed mentality and the fact that the CEO role had “no actual authority” as symptoms, he diagnosed the States of Jersey as “broken” and got to work on a strategy that he said would make it it whole again.
By early March 2018, he had unveiled his ‘OneGov’ blueprint – the largest single reform to the States in living memory. He planned to tear up the structure of the public sector and rebuild it in the likeness of Whitehall, moving and removing staff to create seven new departments led by Director Generals whose portfolios didn’t quite line up with those held by Ministers. There would be some “casualties”, he warned, but these would save the States £1m a year.
Pictured: Charlie Parker laid down his OneGov blueprint in March 2018.
Within the same month, States Members had passed a new law paving the way for those major structural changes. Crucially, the Machinery of Government Law made Charlie Parker ‘Principal Accountable Officer’ (PAO), officially putting his hand on the island’s purse strings, making him legally responsible for ensuring “resources are used economically, efficiently and effectively” and giving him more power over the Chief Officers, which later became known as Director Generals, working beneath him.
If the Chief Minister and the States Employment Board had wanted a quick-moving disruptor, they had found one – and that ‘disruptive’ approach appeared to extend to his ability to negotiate a contract.
When Express managed to obtain the document in redacted form following a landmark challenge to the Information Commissioner, it revealed that Mr Parker had been allowed to write his own job description.
Pictured: One of the more significant redactions within the contract fell within the 'Termination of Employment' section.
It also made reference to a performance appraisal process being put in place involving “the setting of both general and specific objectives.” It wasn’t until one year after the contract was signed, and a new Chief Minister was in place, that vague criteria – such as “deliver One Government and modernise public services”, for example – were agreed.
Assessment against such targets was to be carried out by a psychologist – with whom Mr Parker had previously worked – who would “benchmark Mr Parker’s performance against leaders in other large and complex organisations.” If any had ever officially been set, the formal consequences for Mr Parker should he hit – or fail to hit – these targets were never made public.
The only potential sanction for Mr Parker ever laid out in writing was, should he fail to complete five years’ of ‘satisfactory’ performance, he wouldn’t receive residential qualifications – a contractual perk he had controversially negotiated himself.
Not that this lack of specific disciplinary process mattered at the time – it was to be arranged later. One to sit in the in-tray of the new Ministers following the May 2018 election, according to Senator Gorst.
In a report outlining the Machinery of Government Law, he explained that it was one of a trinity that would underpin Jersey’s new ‘Government’ structure.
Pictured: The only potential sanction for Mr Parker was failing to receive his residential qualifications.
It laid the foundations upon which the Public Finances Law would sit. The latter would lay down how public money should be looked after and spent – and formally placed the Chief Executive’s hand on the island’s purse strings.
Then, finally, an updated version of the States of Jersey Employees Law would be paced on top. It would ensure that there was proper oversight of all the key players involved in running the island, and that they could be held to account and disciplined if need be.
At the time of the Machinery vote, former Bailiff, Minister and Senator Sir Philip Bailhache, expressed serious misgivings about the speed of such a significant change, saying that it was being debated with “unseemly haste”. He suggested that some States Members may have been “bewitched” - as he initially was - by Mr Parker’s “splendid presentation” on his proposed reorganisation of the civil service.
Countering Senator Gorst’s view that such changes would “ensure clearer governance, more transparent decision-making and stronger accountability at the top of the public service”, Senator Bailhache instead felt that the proposal muddied the lines of accountability and concentrated power in the hands of too few.
“The introduction of the Principal Accountable Officer and the interposition of the PAO between a Minister and his Chief Officer, involve a huge shift in departmental relations. No man can serve two masters, and the constitution of the PAO, desirable as it may be for other reasons, comes close to creating this classically undesirable division of accountability. It will require diplomacy and sensitivity on the part of Ministers, their Chief Officers, and the PAO to find the right balance so as to ensure harmonious working relationships.”
While the Machinery of Government proposal passed, Sir Philip’s unease at the scale and pace of change without scrutiny lingered in the minds of many States Members.
It was one of the key reasons there were impassioned appeals around the Ministerial table to ensure that the Employees Law – featuring disciplinary measures – would come into play sooner rather than later.
But it didn’t – when the vote on the Public Finances Law came around in June 2019, it was nowhere to be seen.
By this point in time, Mr Parker had appointed a string of top-tier ‘Director Generals’, announced a new States HQ, and agreed a £2million contract with EY to change the States’ “outdated” management of the public purse among other OneGov initiatives. The tangible impact of the ambitious project was more keenly felt, and it was dividing people. At once, it was seen as a miracle and a disaster, with those in the latter camp beginning to question whether Mr Parker would have to face the music if it didn’t work out.
Asked to vote in favour of handing financial powers to Mr Parker by the Treasury Minister, many States Members could not hide their frustration that new disciplinary processes still hadn’t been drawn up, and wouldn’t come before them, apparently, until the first half of 2020.
“It is just not possible with the resources we have and the amount of work that this law, the briefings and the meetings with Scrutiny and all the financial bodies have taken to do it. However... the review has commenced and will be completed by March on the Employment of States of Jersey Employees Law,” Treasury Minister Deputy Susie Pinel said.
“If you cannot get your governance right, you might as well not bother spending money, because you are wasting it... This Assembly has a propriety over the public service and the way the island is run and I do not feel that the appropriate governance is in place to ensure that the power that fulfils this role is properly justified,” said a furious Senator Vallois.
Meanwhile, Deputy Kirsten Kirsten Morel warned: “One of the biggest concerns I have had from the public is about this centralisation of power into one unelected person. That has come through from all sorts of different members of the public and they are looking to us to ensure that the Chief Executive can be held to account.
“…I do worry [parts of the Public Finances Law will] move further towards this culture where us, as democratically elected Members, are rendered impotent and an unelected Chief Executive is rendered all potent, so to speak.
"I just want to read this one thing from an article about local government and it is from November 2018, so it is very recent and it is about the new Chief Executive of Westminster Council. The new Chief Executive, Mr Love, he says: ‘There is a change in culture that the organisation is crying out for and my drive is about shared leadership across the organisation. The leadership of this organisation should not be vested in one person.’ That is the new Chief Executive of Westminster Council, who obviously inherited an overly-centralised culture and is seeking to find their way out of it.”
Deputy Scott Wickenden boiled the issue down in simple terms: “I want to take the personality side out of it, it is the idea that we are creating a power structure, but with great power comes great responsibility. Sorry, that was Spiderman.”
Such pleas weren’t enough to turn the tide of the Assembly, and the motion was passed. 18 States Members specifically voted against the article setting out the PAO's powers.
To some degree, States Members’ hands were tied – had they not passed the element of the proposals relating to the PAO, the Treasury Minister warned that it would have left the entire Government without accountable officers in Ministerial departments for the first time since 2005.
It left a sour taste, and Members and Scrutineers began discussing behind the scenes how the situation could be improved.
In early 2020, Chief Scrutineer Senator Kristina Moore went so far as to write her own proposition to introduce a disciplinary process for the Chief Executive, but it was “disallowed for constitutional reasons.”
Pictured: Senator Kristina Moore tried to draw up a disciplinary process for the Chief Executive, but was not allowed to.
Although it was never confirmed by Government, the arrival of the pandemic appeared to delay work on the Employees Law.
In the summer, Express asked the Government for an update on Mr Parker’s disciplinary process, but never received a response despite follow-up queries.
Of course, not having a disciplinary process was only a problem if there was a disciplinary matter. This wasn’t an issue…until it was.
In late October 2020, it emerged that Mr Parker had taken on a £50,000-a-year second job as a Non-Executive Director at UK real estate firm New River. His employment contract stated that he had to get written permission from his ‘Employer’ – the SEB – but he had only received verbal permission from the Chief Minister in the summer. While Senator Le Fondré had always acted as Mr Parker’s ‘line manager’, this was not enshrined in law.
This, quite clearly, was a potential disciplinary matter. When it rains, it pours.
Matters were further complicated by the fact Mr Parker had approved an erroneous media statement suggesting that the Deputy Chief Minister had approved his second job when he had not. Approving this notice, the Government’s accountability watchdog, Comptroller and Auditor General Lynn Pamment, later concluded in a report, was a clear conflict of interest.
Three days after news of his second job emerged, the SEB gave retrospective approval.
On 3 November, Mr Parker wrote to the Chief Minister with an apology for the omission in securing written approval and a proposed way forward that retained the Chief Executive role and his non-executive directorship.
Two days later, the Council of Ministers expressed the strong view that his second job as “incompatible” with his role as CEO.
At the time, the SEB had become aware that there were “weaknesses” in any disciplinary processes available to them.
As the Government’s accountability watchdog later observed in a report, the key issue was that the Government's existing disciplinary regime had “not been written with the position of Chief Executive in mind.”
Comptroller and Auditor General Lynn Pamment explained: “As a consequence, there were no specific procedures that could be used in the event of any need to take disciplinary action in respect of the former Chief Executive, outside of the procedures that applied to any other member of staff. The position of Chief Executive is however unique in that:
It also emerged that there were “limited procedures” for dealing with conflicts of interest.
Even if the SEB believed he had done wrong and should have been sanctioned, with no official way to ‘discipline’ Mr Parker, the Government was exposed to a huge potential legal claim.
It was hard to tell how high that cost might be – a battle with wrongly sacked eye surgeon Dr Amar Alwitry, who was claiming £8m in damages, had seen them cash out £100,000 in legal fees alone.
In the end, it appeared a golden handshake was the only way out – and a £500,000 compromise agreement was signed on 12 November.
The Comptroller and Auditor General found that this was more than what Mr Parker should have been entitled to for early departure according to his employment contract, but “not unreasonable” in light of the law suit the SEB could have faced.
Amid this, Senator John Le Fondré faced a vote of no confidence brought by Senator Kristina Moore, which he won.
She explained that, in previously trying and failing to bring forward a disciplinary process for the Chief Executive herself, she spoke to former Deputy and political expert Roy Le Hérissier. "His advice was ultimately it is the Chief Minister who is accountable for his actions. That is why we are here today," she said.
Pictured: The Chief Minister (left) faced a vote of no confidence over the saga.
While we now know the quantum of the pay-out and the journey that led the SEB into an unenviable position, key questions remain.
Why was updating the States of Jersey Employees Law never prioritised alongside the other two pieces of legislation crucial to OneGov despite so many warnings? When millions has been invested into bolstering the Government’s HR function and processes, why did no one identify what appeared to be a crucial gap in disciplinary processes? Why did the SEB allow Mr Parker to set his job terms and targets without appearing to give any thought to what would happen if these weren’t hit? Will the same performance appraisal process be in place for the new Chief Executive? And at what point do we draw the line between Ministers taking responsibility for an action and the civil servants themselves?
The Comptroller and Auditor General wants any legislative and procedural gaps to be plugged as soon as possible, so that the same problem cannot happen again.
Among her key recommendations are “develop a suitable disciplinary policy and supporting process specific to the post of Chief Executive” and “update policies and procedures for dealing with perceived and actual conflicts of interest of senior employees including the Chief Executive.”
But, if such warnings are finally heeded, they should avoid the Government walking, once again, eyes wide open into a fresh crisis in future.
See Express next week for our analysis of where Jersey goes next, following Mr Parker's reforms.
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.