Select a region
The outgoing Government CEO has threatened to make an official complaint against a Scrutineer for “potential intimidation” after she asked him to appear at a hearing to answer questions on "outstanding matters" before he leaves.
In a letter explaining why he wouldn’t be attending a meeting before his departure due to existing commitments and annual leave, Charlie Parker questioned whether Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Chair Deputy Inna Gardiner was suggesting civil servants shouldn’t take holidays and asked which of his appointments she deemed “not important."
Deputy Gardiner has since shared the letter – which left her “shocked and disturbed” – with the Chief Minister, Mr Parker’s official employer.
Deputy Gardiner – whose committee is responsible for examining the Government’s use of taxpayer money – wrote to Mr Parker on Monday to ask that he “reconsider” his decision not to appear at a hearing on 29 March to discuss topics including “how public funds are being spent on the digital programme and whether the continuing engagement of consultants throughout Government departments represents value for money.”
Since PAC’s last hearing with Mr Parker on 8 February, it has emerged that the pandemic pushed the Government’s consultancy bill to £26m in six months, and that a major IT project had gone over its budget by 125%, costing £63m.
Deputy Gardiner explained in her letter that her committee had “attempted to be flexible” with dates to discuss “outstanding issues”, but that Mr Parker had “declined to appear” at any hearing “citing time pressures/annual leave and conflicting appointments”.
Pictured: Mr Parker questioned whether Deputy Gardiner was suggesting civil servants shouldn't take annual leave and asked her which of his appointments she was suggesting was "not important".
Reminding him that “accountability to the Public Accounts Committee is an inherent part of your responsibilities to all islanders”, she concluded that a press release about the next public hearing with “reference” to his decision not to appear would be published the following day should he not change his mind.
Mr Parker replied the next day, telling Deputy Gardiner he found the tone of her letter “surprising and disappointing”.
He said he had never turned down a meeting “unless there is a very good and unavoidable reason” and reminded her that she had told him at their last meeting: “I wish you well in the future whatever you decide to do.”
Mr Parker said he was on annual leave “booked some weeks ago” on the meeting dates she had suggested, questioning: “Are you suggesting that officers should not be allowed to take pre-booked annual leave?”
Explaining that he was “unable to change some key diary arrangements” this week, he went on to list his schedule.
“Such appointments include a full meeting of [Council of Ministers], an Emergencies Council meeting, my own Executive Leadership Team meeting, numerous handover sessions involving the incoming [Chief Executive], including with the Attorney General and Solicitor General, plus a major civil claims session, a meeting with Guernsey politicians and senior officials and a handover session with His Excellency, the Lieutenant Governor. None of which includes key meetings on the budget, Covid, various final 1:1 sessions with officers.
“Which of these would you suggest are not important?"
Pictured: Mr Parker listed the many meetings he had scheduled in his final days in the top civil service job.
In his concluding remarks, Mr Parker said he was “taken aback” at Deputy Gardiner’s press release suggestion.
“In the week when we have published progress on dealing with the bullying culture within the public service, I was shocked that you as Chair of PAC would threaten to go to the press on this matter should I not respond by an arbitrary date and time that had been set by yourself, which was less than 24 hours after receipt of your original letter,” he wrote.
“Is this the behaviour that you as Chair of PAC would condone in any other context? Does such a threat and potential intimidation fully accord with the code of conduct that you as a States Assembly Member have signed up to?”
He added that, should she take such a course of action, he will “be forced” to publish his letter and also “have no choice” but to refer her to States Members’ disciplinary authorities, the Commissioner for Standards and the Privileges and Procedures Committee.
Mr Parker said it was “a course of action I would rather not professionally have to undertake but, such is my concern at both the tone and the threatening nature contained within your letter, it leaves me with little option but to do so.”
PAC did not publish a press release on receipt of Mr Parker’s letter, but Deputy Gardiner instead wrote to the Chief Minister – who is Chair of the States Employment Board, Mr Parker’s employer – yesterday to explain how she had been left “shocked and disturbed” by the seemingly “aggressive” correspondence.
Pictured: Deputy Gardiner told the Chief Minister - as Mr Parker's employer - that it was important a Chief Executive "recognised and understood" their responsibilities.
Noting that the CEO must answer to PAC under the Public Finances Law, she asked Senator John Le Fondré “what consideration will be given to ensure that the responsibility and answerability of the Principal Accountable Officer to the Public Accounts Committee are recognised and understood.”
“It is imperative that there are no negative repercussions on the culture and productive working across the public sector and we wish to form a positive and productive working relationship with the incoming interim CEO.”
In the absence of Mr Parker, a public hearing on consultant and digital spend will still be going ahead on 29 March with the Government's Chief of Staff and Chief Operating Officer, and the public are being invited to submit questions.
The PAC are holding a public hearing with the Chief of Staff and Chief Operating Officer on Monday 29th March, and are looking to put your questions to them.
— States Assembly (@StatesAssembly) March 16, 2021
Send in questions relevant to the items below using #PACasks or our online form: https://t.co/Ajb5zzPjzT #ScrutinyJSY pic.twitter.com/S6o51f7HyZ
Mr Parker, who was originally due to remain in Jersey for at least five years, agreed to step down early in November in the wake of a row over his second job. Express understands that Mr Parker’s final day in the office was Wednesday 17 March, with the final weeks of the month being taken as annual leave.
In his second, fixed-term contract – the existence of which Express revealed last month – his official final day is specified as 31 March. It says he has to reside in Jersey throughout the time he is employed.
The purpose of Mr Parker’s new contract, and whether it will affect any subsequent termination pay-out stipulated in his original contract, remains unclear. When Express asked the States Employment Board, they simply said they had created the new contract to cover his handover period with interim CEO Paul Martin based on “advice”.
The new contract allows him to leave two months earlier than the six-month period of notice stipulated in his original contract.
The exact terms of Government CEO Charlie Parker’s departure, his second contract, and the topic of ‘golden handshakes’ are set to be probed in official reviews over the coming months.
Pictured: Express revealed Government has given Mr Parker a short term contract covering 8 January to 31 March 2021.
PAC will be focusing on any financial agreement made relating to Mr Parker’s exit as part of its upcoming review of the States Annual Report and Accounts 2020, which are yet to be released.
Meanwhile, Comptroller and Auditor General Lynn Pamment - the Government’s spending watchdog - has decided to follow up on previous reviews into the States Employment Board (SEB) and the use of compromise agreements, which are known colloquially as ‘golden handshakes’.
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.