The “POWER” of PPC

The interesting thing about this letter from PPC to Chief Officer Graham Power is - it doesn’t appear to be from PPC!

For those of you that have read the previous post you will be aware that Chief Officer Power wrote a letter addressed to the Privileges and Procedures Committee. This letter contained “evidence” that the sequence of events, according to the official line, surrounding his suspension just did not stack up. And without answers to certain questions it looked remarkably like certain members of our Council of Ministers and certain Civil Servants might have acted, shall we say, “improperly”.

You will note by the reply the Chief Officer received to his letter sent to PPC that the reply is authored by Connetable Juliette Gallichan who is the Chairman of PPC and she refers only to herself in it. That is to say at the start of the letter she says “ . I have been giving considerable thought to your enquiry” and goes onto use the word “I” rather than “we” or “the committee”.

Now as if the contents of the letter aren’t alarming enough the question has to be asked “do the PPC members even know about Chief Officer Power’s letter”? “Has the Chairman come to the conclusions all on her own?”.

Team Voice e-mailed all the members of PPC to ask them these questions and up to now have only had a reply from Senator Ian Le Marquand, who has stated he wasn’t aware of the letter ‘til last week. Some might say well there’s no point in telling him about it because he is conflicted anyway, which is something else Senator Le Marquand has stated in his e-mail.

This is true but one could also argue he should have been informed of it’s existence purely for the minutes of any meeting where he would declare he was conflicted, so it is then a matter of public record.

Again we must remember we are talking about a highly respected and decorated member of Her Majesty’s Police Force with an exemplary policing pedigree………until he came to Jersey! Also he is not complaining about a minor misdemeanour. He is providing evidence of a possible “government within a government”, the very strong chance that Civil Servants might have co-opted or manipulated elected officials to break the law!

The reply he received from Connetable Gallichan just goes to show if such a powerful man as the Chief of Police can be treated like this by our government what chance have the rest of us got?

There are still a multitude of questions that need some kind of an answer like “what can the Chief Constable do with his evidence”? Who are the Council of Ministers accountable to?” and many, many, more questions far too many to list here.
Below is the reply the Chief Officer got from Connetable Gallichan and if her “recommendation” to the chief Constable wasn’t so chillingly frightening it would almost be laughable. But the sorry thing is she is deadly serious.

Below Connetable Gallichan’s reply to the Chief Officer is the e-mail sent by Team Voice to all members of PPC, to which only Senator Le Marquand has replied.


Privileges and Procedures Committee
Our ref: 1240/9(134)
Mr. G. Power
13 November 2009 Dear Mr. Power,
Outcome of your appeal under the Administrative Decisions (Jersey) Law 1982. Complaint arising from the disclosure of information regarding the events preceding your suspension

Thank you for your letter dated 30 October 2009. I have been giving considerable thought to your enquiry and to whether the Privileges and Procedures Committee is able to assist you further.

Clearly, the process relating to your complaint under the above Law is complete. having been able to reverse the decision that you had complained about, and obtained the information you sought.

On page 3 of your letter, you list matters that you consider fall within the remit of the PPC. I’m afraid I am unable to agree that these do fall within the area that PPC covers. It is for the Council of Ministers to oversee the work of Ministers, and in this it is guided by the Code of Conduct for Ministers (R.14/2006) and through the Chief Minister, the work of officers supporting the executive function, PPC has authority to enquire into the conduct of a member where a complaint has been received, and in this is guided by the Code of Conduct for Elected Members to be found at Appendix 3 of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey. Any complaint against a Minister or Assistant Minister acting in an official capacity would be dealt with under the procedure set out in R.14/2006.

I must also say that the PPC has no remit to investigate “a general complaint against the conduct of government” (your page 5). I appreciate that you are seeking a remedy, and I note that you copied your letter to the Connétable of St. Helier. It may be that he can assist you from a political perspective.
I am sorry that I can’t offer more specific help in this matter but you will appreciate that Standing Orders determine the parameters within which PPC is able to work.
Yours sincerely,
Connétable de Ste Marie
Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee j
States Greffe I Morier House St Helierl Jersey I JE1 1DD
Tel; 01534 441033 I Fax: 01534 441098 email: jg.gallichan@gov.je

Dear PPC member.

As some of you might be aware we at "Team Voice" recently published the letter sent to you by Chief Officer Graham Power on one of our Blogsites. For those of you that haven't read it yet it can be found here http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/01/facts-evidence-untruths-and-is-somebody.html

As you will see by a comment left on the Blog, by a member of Team Voice, there is confusion as to how the decision making process of PPC works.

After looking at the minutes of PPC meetings on the States website, there appears to be no record of a meeting taken place to discuss the truly alarming contents of Chief Officer Power's letter nor how Connetable Gallichan came to her "findings" in her letter to Cheif Officer Power dated the 13th of November 2009.

Would somebody be so kind as to inform members of the public.

1. Did a meeting of PPC take place to discuss Chief officer Power's letter? and if so, where can one find a public record of this meeting?

2. If a meeting wasn't held, does this mean the decision making process was entirely down to Connetable Gallichan? baring in mind the Chief Officer's letter was addressed to the Privileges and Procedures Committee and not exclusively to the Connetable.

3. If it is the case that the decision making process comes down soley to the Connetable what is the point of having a committee?

In the interests of fair and open government we hope one, or all of you, can clear these questions up with clear and concise answers?

Kind Regards.

Team Voice.