Comrades,
Today I, and presumably those of you who sent on the previous template email, received a response from the Electoral Commission rejecting our reasonable request to find out exactly how much work each category of States Member does.
I am fairly disappointed, though not surprised, with the argument that has been put forward to us.
Essentially the commission have tried to side-line us, and have done a very poor job of it.
Here is the response we received -
12th June 2012
Dear Mr. Mezec,
Thank you for your email asking that the Electoral Commission carry out research so as to establish the work actually done by different classes of States member. The Commission considered this request at its meeting yesterday.
As you may know the Commission is working to a very tight time-scale because the States have directed the Commission to present its report before the end of the year. If the Commission was to carry out research for one individual, it would obviously have to agree to do the same for any other individual making such a request. The Commission is unwilling to enter into a commitment of that kind.
All the information which you have requested is publicly available on the States Assembly website (www.statesassembly.gov.je) and the Commission would encourage you to use that information to support any submission that you would like to make.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. A. Goodyear
Executive Officer to the Electoral Commission
And here is the reply that I sent on, which you might like to copy and paste, edit as you see fit, and send on to show your dismay at the response we received. If you want to write your own response from scratch, please do, it's important that we get our message across -
Dear Anna and members of the Electoral Commission,
Thanks for your response and for the commission taking it's time to consider my request.
Obviously I am disappointed with the response and would be grateful if you could forward my concerns to the commission members.
Namely:
The commission is not at all being asked to carry out research for one individual. As is clear on the Electoral Commission website, at least 13 "individuals" have contacted the commission asking them to carry out this very specific piece of work. Also, I have read all of the submissions that have so far been been published, and not a single other individual has asked the commission to carry out any other tasks on their behalf. Contrary to the commissions assertions, this is not an individual request. It is a request from a substantial group of people.
The commission has said from the start that it intends to be a "peoples commission" and take the views from the public and so it really seems hypocritical to then deny a sensible and reasonable request by a substantial number of people. I would agree with the commission that they can't carry out every individual request if they received many, but they have only received one request, and they have received it many times.
But I also take issue with the suggestion that such a piece of research would in anyway detract from the work the commission is currently doing. The task of compiling how much work each category of states member does is relatively simple and could be done in an afternoon and, most importantly, would not need to be done by the commission members themselves, for they could easily delegate it to another states body, such as the Greffe.
The information we requested is either not on the States Assembly website, or if it is it is hidden somewhere not obvious or is undecipherable. The whole point in us asking for the information, was not necessarily for us as individuals to use it, but so the public at large had easy access to a clear and coherent document outlining the facts and statistics. It is important that the public has this, and it currently does not, which has no doubt led to some of the uninformed and incorrect observations I have read in some of the current submissions.
Therefore, I am very dissatisfied with the reasoning behind the rejection of my proposition and would like it to be reconsidered or a better explanation provided.
Regards,
Samuel Mézec
As I hope I have adumbrated clearly in my response, the reasoning that the commission has given us was totally inadequate. The commission has received no "requests" from "individuals" they have only received one request from several people. The work would be undertaken by another body, not the commission itself. And the information is not currently available to the public. The commission is wrong on all three counts.
Make no mistake, we were rejected because they knew the evidence they would find would destroy any possible case for the Constables to remain as ex-officio States Members.
In the next few days some of us are holding a meeting to discuss what the way forward from here is and, as always, I will keep you up to date.
Thanks,
Sam
Maybe we could write them one letter signed by all of us. Then the 'individual' would be a collective!
ReplyDeleteIndeed, I think that is something to be considered. I'd imagine that we are going to write to every household in the island (like the Commission has already done. If they can do it, why not us eh?), and then possibly create a big submission and collect signatures for it before submitting it.
DeleteMore info as it develops!
I wonder if they would give us help to do this?
DeleteWhy do you need to use a template and what difference does it make as to how many questions are asked on a Tuesday? This is supposed to be a commission looking into the make up of the States and personal submissions should be original and besides I thought you load of grumpies had abandoned the hwole thing anyway?
ReplyDeleteWe use templates because there are plenty of people in Jersey who are interested in island affairs and care passionately about the island, but find it difficult to take the time out of a busy to write a thought out submission. If they see our templates and like them, all it takes them is a minute to forward it on and they have gotten their message across. We are just facilitating
DeleteThere is nothing wrong with a group of people endorsing the same ideas together as one. In fact I think that's a better way of doing it rather than have 1000 people each pulling a different way.
No idea where you got the idea that we'd abandoned political campaigning on electoral reform? That sounds insane!
Oh come on, are you seriously saying people are too busy to put together a one paragraph submission as a minimum!?
DeleteYes. And some that do have the time, would rather just use a template that they feel expresses everything they think.
DeleteCase in point - my templates get used.
By a handful of bloggers. I submitted my own last month and would not dream of using a template for this. The commission must of looked at them all in disbelief.
DeleteThe above comment displays the habitual grammatical hallmark of Jersey's favourite troll. Don't feed the trolls!
DeleteAh yes, trolls, another word for people that disagree with you.
DeleteSam.
ReplyDeleteHave sent my/your response (below). It takes about a minute to do and would encourage your readers to do the same.
"Dear Anna and members of the Electoral Commission,
As was my original e-mail this is a template response which you will hopefully be receiving more of. Outlined in this response is how your reply does not stand up to the tiniest bit of scrutiny and demonstrates the sham that this hijacked "independent" Electoral Commission is.
Thanks for your response and for the commission taking it's time to consider my request.
Obviously I am disappointed with the response and would be grateful if you could forward my concerns to the commission members.
Namely:
The commission is not at all being asked to carry out research for one individual. As is clear on the Electoral Commission website, at least 13 "individuals" have contacted the commission asking them to carry out this very specific piece of work. Also, I have read all of the submissions that have so far been been published, and not a single other individual has asked the commission to carry out any other tasks on their behalf. Contrary to the commissions assertions, this is not an individual request. It is a request from a substantial group of people.
The commission has said from the start that it intends to be a "peoples commission" and take the views from the public and so it really seems hypocritical to then deny a sensible and reasonable request by a substantial number of people. I would agree with the commission that they can't carry out every individual request if they received many, but they have only received one request, and they have received it many times.
But I also take issue with the suggestion that such a piece of research would in anyway detract from the work the commission is currently doing. The task of compiling how much work each category of states member does is relatively simple and could be done in an afternoon and, most importantly, would not need to be done by the commission members themselves, for they could easily delegate it to another states body, such as the Greffe.
The information we requested is either not on the States Assembly website, or if it is it is hidden somewhere not obvious or is undecipherable. The whole point in us asking for the information, was not necessarily for us as individuals to use it, but so the public at large had easy access to a clear and coherent document outlining the facts and statistics. It is important that the public has this, and it currently does not, which has no doubt led to some of the uninformed and incorrect observations I have read in some of the current submissions.
Therefore, I am very dissatisfied with the reasoning behind the rejection of my proposition and would like it to be reconsidered or a better explanation provided."
They have an obligation to explain WHY your request is not the most compelling in relation to the governmental restructuring decisions at hand. If this information is not provided to the public, they might as well admit the public interest has nothing to do with their role. It would appear they do not understand the necessity in a (pretend) democracy, to at least publish, in a user-friendly format the key statistical information any informed electorate would expect. Or, do they not think the electorate should attempt to be well informed? Insanity.
ReplyDeleteSlightly off topic, but the Hansard of Deputy Pitman's successful proposition "Open Ballot for Ministers and Chairmen (P.188/2011)" is illuminative.
ReplyDeleteOn p82, Deputy James Baker states:
"The freedom for individuals to vote for whoever they wish without any external influence is democracy in its neatest and perhaps purest form. This allows Members to follow their own beliefs, free from external pressure, and leaves them able to vote entirely with their conscience without the need for further justification."
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyHansard/2012/2012.05.29%20States%20-%20Edited%20Transcript.pdf#page=82
Does Deputy Baker not realise that his job is to be the REPRESENTATIVE of the electors of St Helier #1? He is not paid £45,000 a year to "follow his own beliefs". That such a Deputy is sitting on an electoral commission is both risible and frightening.
On page 78, Senator Bailhache seeks to conflate the private vote of an elector in a voting booth (which should always be secret) with the vote of an elected member of the Assembly (which should always be public, and soon will be, once P188 is fully implemented). He said:
"Why is it that, when the public cast their votes for Members of the States, it is done in secret and the law lays down rigorous controls to make sure that no one can find out? It is to ensure that democracy is protected and that every person has an absolutely free vote in choosing his or her representative."
These two men clearly do not understand the privacy of an elector versus the public job of being a REPRESENTATIVE of those electors. It is shocking.
Deputy Baker actually SPOKE in a States debate!?
DeleteHell has surely frozen over!
I've always said if a States Member can't vote how their conscience dictates without feeling pressured by their colleagues, then they have no back bone and should be nowhere near the States Chamber in the first place.
Isn't it scary that these two are supposedly in charge of shaping the islands democracy in the future? God help us.
Speaking to one States Member about this last night. All these submissions on a template are not being taken seriously as they have seen what you are trying to do on the blogs and thats fudge public opinion.
ReplyDeleteI'd be intrigued to know which States Member said that?
DeleteIt doesn't surprise me that it's not being taken seriously, but then of course, the whole process of electoral reform isn't being taken seriously otherwise we wouldn't have States Members on the commission.
We are absolutely not trying to fudge public opinion. At the end of the day, if someone doesn't agree with us, they aren't going to send the emails aren't they? The only people that are sending them are the ones that agree with us. What we are doing is empowering people to have their voice heard, when otherwise they may not have had the inclination to speak up. It's called democracy.
This sort of contempt for democracy that your States Member friend has shown is exactly why I believe that decent electoral reform will have to be initiated by the UK government, not the Jersey one.
Mrs Goodyear dismissively wrote:
ReplyDelete"As you may know the Commission is working to a very tight time-scale because the States have directed the Commission to present its report before the end of the year"
The information requested is essential to ascertain which type of States member actually does sufficient useful States work. What else can be filling up their "tight schedule" (six months plus)? How else can the Commission work out which members are the freeloaders and which aren't? Public dissatisfaction is rooted in the belief that there are too many members not doing enough. If the Commission's brief is to improve this, then they MUST have the information requested. If they already have it, and are not releasing it, they are denying the public the information that is required to make relevant submissions. If they don't have it, and are dismissively saying that the public don't need it, or shouldn't have it, then this is Jersey stupidity and/or high handedness in spades.
This claim that the information is available on the States website is appallingly arrogant and is prima facie evidence that "Mrs. A. Goodyear
Executive Officer to the Electoral Commission", and those who may have put her up to this, should be sacked and replaced with sincerely helpful types. This is precisely the sort of deliberately evasive type of response that is so common from the endemically obstructive and unhelpful States and many of their top "civil servants"; it is pure filibustering prevarication. It is rather like someone asking the Constable of a Parish how many households are in the parish and being directed to search through the phone book to tot them up individually.
Goodyear also wrote:
"If the Commission was to carry out research for one individual, it would obviously have to agree to do the same for any other individual making such a request. The Commission is unwilling to enter into a commitment of that kind"
This is stonewalling bullshit. The information requested is important and relevant and the Commission itself should have it, if it is to do a proper job. Complying with a sensible request for vital information does not impose an obligation to answer any request, no matter how frivolous or irrelevant. Either Goodyear fails to realise this (in which case she is grossly incompetent to do the level of job she has) or she is being deceitful.
I couldn't agree more and I hope you have let the commission know your thoughts!
DeleteThe one thing I'd say is that I'd believe that Senator Bailhache is the real person to blame here rather than Mrs. Goodyear who is probably just doing what she is told. Though that being said, I have always found the States Greffe Mr De La Haye to be incredibly helpful when I've had questions to ask, no matter how silly the question has been.
"Anonymous12 June 2012 11:30
ReplyDeleteOh come on, are you seriously saying people are too busy to put together a one paragraph submission as a minimum!?"
We live on an island where approximately 60% of the public feel their vote is worthless. Political apathy is the norm.
Within that context it's perfectly understandable why something like Sam's template serves an essential purpose. If only one person were to make use of it who otherwise have remained removed from the political process a goal would have been achieved.
I can only assume you need to educate yourself further in regards to the overwhelming detachment of islanders from the political process, because if you understood it you'd understand the importance of the template rather than mocking it.
Absolute rubbish. Where is your proof?
Delete40% voter turn outs (and that's on a good day!) is a fact. That's the proof in itself surely?
DeleteOrganisations like AVAAZ (the number one e-campaigning group, nearly 15 million members) or ONE, or Greenpeace, work exacly on this principle. They put up issues and invite people to back that position.
DeleteThe position is clearly argued and stated. Avaaz always gives references. Sometimes 100,000 people sign. Sometimes over 1 million. Their pressure helped to bring about change in Burma, helped to stop the takeover of BSkyB at that critical stage when Hunt was about to give Murdoch the green light. To give just two examples.
Maybe Anonymous thinks that democracy in Burma and stopping Murdoch increase his percentage ownership of all British media are both wrong goals to have. It does not matter. The principle of how to enable people to express their views stands.
How to bring down A GOVERNMENT
ReplyDeleteSam,
ReplyDeleteI think your reply is fine, except for one thing. It is selling the research short to suggest it can be done in an afternoon. It can't. It would take, at an informed guess (I did a lot of research in my time in the States) a couple of weeks. Working out the exact scope of the research would also take time.
It should be drafted by the officer, then discussed and agreed by the Commission, that is also a few hours. Scoping research is not simple. For example, which date slices do you take for the research? You cannot take the entire three years of the last States, it would take too long. So which time segments do you rightly take to give a valid impression? This would have to be clearly stated in the draft of the officer, together with the reasoning. I personally would have two time segments, each one validating the other.
Then, how would you exclude the extremes thus ensuring valid averages? (i.e. one active Constable, or Deputy, could skew the figures, likewise one especially inactive). These outliers would have to be handled in a valid way, which has to be specified in advance, not made up as you go along (because that lays you open to the charge that you are fixing it, one way or the other).
In other words the methodology has to be worked out in advance, and it has to be sound and fair, so that the results command respect.
So, more than one afternoon.
That does not change Sam’s critique. the response of the Commission is patent nonsense. They are free to do some research if one person suggests it, if that research would be useful. They are equally free NOT to carry out research which would be useless, even if twenty people ask for it to be done.
They are supposed to be capable of sifting what they get from the public in order to reach wise conclusions. On the evidence of this, they are not, coming up instead with the argument that if they do what one person asks they would have to do what anyone asks, which is just plain silly.
The real point is, does the research add to the debate? Does it help Jersey come to the right decision?
This point they spectularly ignore, yet the answer to that is clearly: "yes". How can one make a judgement between the three classes of member without this information??