LETTER No 1
From: Robert Weston
Sent: Fri 12 Mar 2004 06:46
To: Sen Mike Vibert
Cc: Dep Julian Bernstein; Dep Caroline Labey; Dep Ben Fox; Dep Judy Martin
Subject: Election Banner - Rouge Bouillon School railingsDear Mike
Having first requested and received permission from Rouge Bouillon school to place an election banner on the school's rear railings, facing the Queen's Road roundabout, I have subsequently been asked to remove it by an officer of the Education Department. I understand that this is the result of a personal decision on your part, made some while ago, which has not actually been put to, or considered by, your committee.. I gather that it arose out of a single complaint you received, regarding an election poster or banner placed at First Tower School, at a previous election.
The Queen's Road roundabout railings have been a traditional banner location at election times, ever since the roundabout was built. So it's curious that, based on a single unidentified complaint, you should decide to change the tradition unilaterally and without any debate or consultation with candidates past or present. I gather that your intention was to show impartiality, the principle of which all candidates (including me) would applaud. But there are TWO methods of showing impartiality in this particular case.
One method is to adopt the "control everything" route (as you have done) and ban all banners, which also involves the taxpayer's time of civil servants to exercise the aforesaid control when they are, I imagine, quite busy enough already, without having to monitor school railings for "illicit" election banners. The alternative method is to allow ALL banners. Both methods are EQUALLY impartial of course.
The fact that some candidates may choose to erect banners around the Island, to tell the public that an election is going on, and some choose not to do so, is obviously a matter for each candidate and not a matter of "partiality" or otherwise on the part of the Education Committee. I'm sure you cannot be suggesting that the electoral law now be amended to prevent INDIVIDUAL election candidates from displaying banners unless ALL candidates display banners. This would be taking political correctness a bit too far, I think!
I have been reminded that these two schools are also Polling Stations and are, therefore, already used as part of the electoral process. I presume that it is not your intention to disallow this use in the future. However, they are only polling stations on polling day itself and, in any event, the Rouge Bouillon railings in question are not within 100 yards line-of-sight of the polling station entrance, which I believe is interpreted to be the legal meaning of the words "in the immediate vicinity" as contained in the Law. So, historically, election banners and posters have never had to be removed from these railings, even on polling day.
Amongst other things, I am standing on a platform of democracy, open government and freedom of speech, as well as the need for a serious degree of de-regulation. As you were at Imagine Jersey 1&2, I think you will acknowledge that this is clearly the public mood. I attach a copy of my manifesto. I thought you stood for these things too which, if so, makes your decision even more difficult to understand and I would be grateful for your more detailed explanation.
Our education system should surely be teaching our children (amongst other things) what elections are all about, in particular making an effort to prevent them becoming as apathetic towards elections as their parents have become. So what message is your ban sending out? "Elections are something that the education committee wishes to stand back from and be impartial about", perhaps. It is hardly saying, by example, "we want children to be excited about elections and participate in them in whatever way they reasonably can". It is saying "Freedom of Speech is not permitted on Education Committee property". I would suggest that the stifling of free speech in this way is an equally poor example to set children. They should be taken on walks to view election material - not have it hidden from them.
I realise how busy you are but I really do think you have got this one entirely wrong. Having now spoken personally to most of the Education Committee on the subject, I suspect that, if there had been an in-committee debate on the matter (or even some public consultation) a different conclusion might well have been reached. I do hope that, on reflection, you will personally review the ruling, as I understand you have indicated that an appeal to the whole committee could not be achieved in time and that it would, in any event, be "unlikely to change anything".
In the meantime, I'm writing as a matter of courtesy to advise that, on behalf of all Jersey candidates for election (both present and future), I intend making my points both publicly and to the media on this subject (in support of my case for more open government and freedom of speech) and want to be sure I have all my facts right. My letter will also serve to give you an opportunity to prepare a response for the media, should they seek to ask you for comment. So, if I have made any factual mistakes, would you be kind enough to let me know within the next 24 hours please. Otherwise I will assume my facts to be accurate.
I'm really sorry to have to trouble you with this matter, Mike, as I know you have many other, more important, matters to deal with. But free democratic elections and freedom of speech are, in my view, pretty important too.
Best wishes
Robert Weston
tel: 766366
LETTER No 2
From: Robert Weston
Sent: 12 March 2004 11:19
To: Derek De La Haye
Cc: Sen Mike Vibert; Dep Julian Bernstein; Dep Caroline Labey; Dep Ben Fox; Dep Judy Martin
Subject: FW: Election Banner - Rouge Bouillon School railings
Dear Derek
I refer to our telephone conversation, a few minutes ago, regarding the election banner, which I erected on Springfield railings two days ago, having previously received and paid for permission so to do. I was called at about 10:30 this morning to be told that my banner had been physically removed and that I could call to collect it, when convenient, together with a refund of my money.
I do of course have a paid-for contract with Springfield to display my banner, even if there was some unwritten policy to the contrary that had been forgotten. It was, therefore, quite wrong for anyone, in the circumstances to touch my property.
In any event, I have communicated with the President (Senator M Vibert) by email early this morning (06:46) and have also spoken with all members of the committee on this subject in the last 24 hours. This is because I have also been asked to remove my banner from Rouge Bouillon School railings and I believe the President's unilaterally imposed policy decision is entirely contrary to the normal democratic process; not to mention also being contrary to the best interests of our children, who should be educated to find elections exciting and something in which to be involved - not something that has to be hidden away from them as though it were pornography. We are supposed to be trying to overcome the Jersey electorate's apathy and we surely have to start this by educating the children.
I promised to send you a copy of my email to the President and you will find it below. I look forward to some feedback from somebody later today.
Best wishes
Robert Weston
tel 766366
LETTER No 3
From: Derek De La Haye
Sent: 12 March 2004 12:40
To: Robert Weston
Subject: FW: Election Banner - Rouge Bouillon School railings
Dear Robert,
Many thanks for the email and the attached which was sent to Senator Vibert. I have recently spoken with him and am aware that, as you suggested, he is at the same meeting as the rest of ESC Commiittee at lunch time. I understand that he will discuss the matter with them then, and that he will get back to you later in the day.
Many thanks
Derek de la Haye
Assistant Director Sport and Leisure
LETTER No 4
From: Mike Vibert
To: Robert Weston
Cc: Ben Fox; Julian Bernstein; Carolyn Labey; Judith Martin; Tom McKeon; Mario Lundy
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 2:24 PM
Subject: Election BannerDear Mr. Weston,
Thank you for your e-mail of today's date concerning my decision not to allow banners supporting individual election candidates to be displayed on all Education, Sport and Culture Committee premises.
The issue was brought to my notice yesterday and after considering the situation, I, as President of the Education, Sport and Culture Committee, decided a ruling needed to be made. My ruling was, and is, that no individual election candidate's banners will be permitted to be displayed on ESC premises. It was the first time the issue had been brought to my notice, having only been in my present office some 15 months, and this being the first election since my election as President of ESC.
I made this ruling because I believe it would be wrong for schools and other ESC establishments, or the ESC Department or Committee, to be open to the inference that there was a partiality or support for any one or more candidates in an election.
I have since corresponded with my four ESC Committee members, who have all assented to my decision.
You wrote in your e-mail "Our education system should surely be teaching our children (amongst other things) what elections are all about, in particular making an effort to prevent them becoming as apathetic towards elections as their parents have become." I can inform you that teaching our children what elections are all about forms part of the Jersey Curriculum. Schools are also being encouraged to have elected school councils which gives pupils first hand experience of participating and voting in an election. In fact, in my speech for the Presidency of the Education, Sport and Culture Committee, I stressed the importance of our children learning and understanding such important community processes.In your e-mail you write "If I have made any factual mistakes, would you be kind enough to let me know within the next 24 hours please. Otherwise I will assume my facts to be accurate." I am pleased I am able to reply within the arbitary timescale you mention but wish to make the point that if, for whatever reason, out of the Island, more urgent States' business, for example, I had not been able to reply in that time, it would have been wholly wrong, in my view, to assume this meant your "facts" were correct.
To try to put some issues you raise in context, I make the following points.
In your e-mail, you state "Having first requested and received permission from Rouge Bouillon School to place an election banner on the School's rear railings". Rouge Bouillon School has a policy on and an application form to be filled in and signed by the Headteacher for any application for banner advertising to be displayed on school premises. The Headteacher of Rouge Bouillon informed me he has no knowledge of receipt of a form from yourself and has certainly not signed and agreed to any application from yourself for an election banner to be displayed. The first two terms and conditions set out on the application form clearly state:1. Banners are accepted for display at the sole discretion of the Headteacher.
2. Applications are only considered on completion, and submission, of the official application form.
I understand that permission was given for a banner to be placed on the Springfield Stadium railings and that a fee of £20 was paid for this facility. I regret this was done and apologise for this. The employee who agreed this was unaware of the new ruling I had made and, of course, your fee and your banner, will be returned to you.The ruling I made yesterday was, I believe, within my competency to make as the elected President of the Education, Sport and Culture Committee. Presidents often have to make decisions in between formal committee meetings with retrospective agreement and endorsement from the committee being obtained. In this case my ruling has since received the assent of all ESC committee members.
I hope this clarifies the situation
Yours sincerely
Senator Mike Vibert
LETTER No 5
From: Robert Weston
Sunday 14th March 2004
To: Mike Vibert
Cc: Ben Fox; Julian Bernstein; Carolyn Labey; Judy Martin;Tom McKeon; Mario Lundy
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:59 PM
Subject: Election Banners at Rouge Bouillon School and Springfield Stadium
Dear Senator Vibert (Mike)
Thank you for your prompt response to my email. I confirm that, as previously mentioned, I intend to pass the correspondence (including this response) to the media. I will also be publishing it on my own election website at www.jersey.co.uk/robert.
The public display of election material is a typical example of what Islanders used to be free to do without any permission whatever.The "politically correct" attitude adopted last week by you, by your department and apparently by your committee, without any public consultation (not even with the current candidates for election) has taken my breath away. I consider it to be appallingly anti-democratic and contrary to the very freedom of speech that wars have been fought over. It is nothing less than an outrageous and totally unwarranted assault on Jersey's traditional democratic process. In my view, it is the very worst kind of example for the "Minister" of Education to be setting our children.
Furthermore, it is exactly this sort of petty regulation and control, imposed constantly nowadays by Jersey's growing band of autocratic bureaucrats, that I have pledged myself to fight. They should all have much more important things to do and, frankly, you could hardly have presented the whole community with a better example of the costly waste of civil service time that I am seeking election to eliminate. If fortunate enough to be elected, I shall cut my teeth (so to speak) on attacking your incredibly authoritarian and unpopular stance on this matter. Perhaps you should pray that I fail to get elected, as you would then be able to trumpet my failure as a clear mandate for you to carry on seeking to control every tiny aspect of people's lives.
To reply to the points in your letter that call for a response:
Point 1 You say you believe it would be "wrong for schools and other ESC establishments, or the ESC Department or Committee, to be open to the inference that there was a partiality or support for any one or more candidates in an election". But you are silent on why ESC properties are somehow different from other publicly owned property in this regard. Yet, the natural extrapolation of your view (if you had your way and it were within your remit) would be to apply exactly the same principle to all publicly owned edifices, land, buildings, streets, street furniture (such as railings and lamposts), traffic roundabouts, carparks, housing estates, ports, etc.
Would you therefore kindly confirm, if you can, that you have never displayed your own election material in or on any of these public locations. In the alternative, would you kindly explain to the public how it could have been acceptable for your own election material to have been displayed on (for example) a public services or parish-owned lamp-post without the Public Services Dept or the relevant Parish being perceived to be exhibiting partiality or support for you. Also kindly explain why such exhibition of Public or Parish partiality was acceptable in your case but is unacceptable in respect of the current candidates for election.
The answer is, of course, that nobody in their right mind would consider the public display of an election poster or banner to equate to an exhibition of partiality, so long as the same opportunity was open, on the same terms, to all candidates. Historically, these things have always worked on a first-come, first-served basis. If another candidate has put his or her poster on your favourite lamp-post in St Brelade, you don't accuse the Parish of partiality. You simply look for an alternative location in the Parish where the lamp-post is free.
If Islanders are to know that an election is happening and the dreaded apathy is to be avoided, then the free public display and distribution of posters, banners and manifestos is essential and there can hardly be better places for such display than public buildings and public places. This has, of course, been the electoral tradition for decades (perhaps centuries) until your personal and unilateral decision, last Thursday, to interfere. Surely your intervention is the sort of idea that normally comes from a deranged English consultant - not from a dyed-in-the-wool Jerseyman. I hardly dare imagine what will be next, if your philosophy were to be imposed throughout the Public Sector. Hustings would no longer be permitted in Parish Halls for fear of being accused of partiality towards SOME of the candidates if and whenever OTHER of the candidates chose not to attend. The post office would no longer be allowed to distribute the literature of SOME candidates for fear of showing partiality against those candidates who chose to do no mail-shotting. What arrant nonsense this would be.
Point 2 I'm delighted to hear that, in your speech seeking the Presidency of Education, you supported the principle of educating our children learning and understanding the public election process. What a shame you feel it is inappropriate to put the theory into practice at a personal level, when it comes to the first real public election after your appointment to office!
Point 3 The 24-hour time-scale, in which I asked you to reply and which you have referred to as being "arbitrary", was not arbitrary at all. On Thursday afternoon and Friday morning, I had conversations with your officers and with your committee members. As it happens, by the way, your committee members unanimously failed to support your "arbitrary" ruling and had, in fact, previously known nothing about it. However, from these conversations, I knew you were both in Jersey AND available to respond promptly.
Just as a point of record, however, my offering you the opportunity to correct inaccurate facts and to have time to prepare your answer for the media (should they ask you for comment) was purely a courtesy to you on my part. It was not something I was somehow required to do. So the timescale, arbitrary or otherwise, was irrelevant.
Whilst I thank you for seeking to "teach this Grandma how to suck eggs", I am 61 and have been in business all my adult life. I am the elected President of two major trade associations in the Island and I don't believe I need your guidance on matters of political etiquette. On the other hand, I think you might usefully consider taking lessons in the theory of political consultation and the management of free elections.
Point 4 Regarding my communication with Rouge Bouillon school, I first telephoned in at 11 am on Tuesday, 9th March. I asked the switchboard operator who I should speak to in order to erect a banner on the railings. I mentioned the Education Dept, the Head, and the School Secretary as possibilities but she told me that the school caretaker had been delegated to handle this matter. She said she would get him to phone me back and he did so, from his mobile phone, a few minutes later. These phone calls will be clearly shown on the respective phone bills of course. He authorised me to erect the banner but at no stage was I shown or asked to complete an application form; so I could hardly be expected to know the terms and conditions printed on that form. I live around the corner from this school and pass it almost every day. At all times, there are multiple banners on those railings. I imagine, therefore, that if the official procedure is routinely complied with, you will be able to produce perhaps fifty or so signed application forms relating to the first eleven weeks of this year and probably hundreds over the last five or ten years. I would be interested to know if the authorised procedure is routinely followed.
For you to use the Headteacher's name in order to question my integrity, and thus to imply that I was lying about having received consent, is an atrocious abuse of your authority. Have you actually questioned the staff as to whether I was given permission? Have you asked them what has been normal practice until now, or have you merely questioned the headteacher as to what should have been the standard practice? When you have done this thoroughly and established the facts, may I suggest that an honorable man would apologise for such an insult. May I further suggest that you consider using some of that spare civil-service capacity to train ESC staff in the correct procedure, rather than wasting taxpayers' money in persecuting ordinary citizens and questioning their honesty? (Please also see the similar lack of training of staff at Springfield in point 5 following). Of course this degree of training would all be unnecessary, had such a stupid ruling not been made in the first place.
Point 5 As regards your apology for the alleged staff "error" in taking my fee and granting me permission to erect a banner at Springfield, I accept the apology on behalf of the Public of the Island. However, I have a fully paid-up, two-week, financial contract with the Department and I expect it to be honoured in full. If that banner does not go back up by 10am on Tuesday 16th March, I will seek to issue the appropriate proceedings for specific performance. As I understand it, there is no law or even official minuted policy to support your arbitrary ruling and therefore absolutely no legitimate grounds, upon which the ESC Committee might reasonably renege on this commercial contract.
Returning to the question of inadequate training, every businessman knows that, if a member of staff has been inadequately trained and costs the company money or service as a result, then that is simply a business cost that has to be borne. I draw your attention to the fact that your new "policy" on election material was not public knowledge, that it was not known to the relevant ESC staff and that it was not even known to your Committee members and it was certainly not known to me at the time I paid the fee and erected the banner. You do not, therefore, even have the option of being able to accuse me of deliberaately exploiting some sort of error made by a naive member of ESC staff.
Perhaps you should bear in mind that, were a candidate to lose the election as a result of your personal interference, there could even be a claim for compensation. Furthermore, any official, who is shown to have acted ultra vires, could even be required to pay any such compensation personally. I also happen to think that, if interference with the Island's customary election process is not already an offence, then perhaps it should be.
May I recommend that you consider adopting the lesser of two evils and simply rely on my losing the election WITHOUT your personal help.
Point 6 I naturally recognise that there are occasions, between meetings, that committee Presidents must make an executive decision. But these occasions must inevitably be the result of some sort of serious emergency. You cannot be seriously claiming that the unilateral cancellation of a tradition, which has been going on for generations, was such an emergency that you did not even have time to consult with your committee BEFORE making an executive decision. No, no, no - this is the electronic age. I beg to suggest that this whole exercise has been an entirely unacceptable and ultra vires abuse of your political power. If that is an unreasonable view to adopt, I already withdraw the allegation and humbly apologise for it.
Kindly confirm the reinstatement of my Springfield banner within the timescale requested. If you have to take legal advice, may I suggest you reinstate the banner whilst taking that advice. You can always remove it again if the advice you receive warrants it.
Yours sincerely
Robert Weston
tel: 766366