I thought you may all like to know that I had dinner with Senator Syvret the other night and one of his moles from Health and Social Services has told him of a meeting chaired by Bill Ogley last Tuesday.
Stuart was informed that around 35 people were called to this meeting and they were told a number of things, he spoke about Stuart's blog, and my blog, Joe Kennedy and Andrew Williamson and Howard League.
Some of the points he made were:
1. There will be no more investigations for a long time (I find it interesting that the top Chief Executive of the civil service can be so sure that no forthcoming events will require investigations - this kind of statement does fill me with confidence about States of Jersey!!!).
2. We have lessons to learn (but Will they learn them - I doubt it very much? Why would they start learning lessons now?).
3. After being asked why they don't sue Stuart Syvret and myself he responded by saying we don't have much money and they don't want to make us bankrupt (or perhaps he meant to say that if they did sue the Court hearing would make public all that we have to say, and that wouldn't be good news!).
4. He was asked how they are going to deal with the likely problems of recruiting more social workers from the UK. He stated that they want to get on side with Community Care but unfortunately they seem to be believing Simon Bellwood's story (Erm.., I think he meant to say that unfortunately the Community Care team cannot be bought off or manipulated and that they prefer to believe the truth than the cock and bull stories that the States of Jersey tell them!).
5. He was asked why Andrew Williams did not interview all staff from social services. He responded by saying that 'maybe he was happy with what other people had already told him'.
6. He praised the police on their great job in relation to Haute de La Garenne (Here here, I agree they have done a great job. Look out when they start coming for the people in top civil servants jobs - Bill Ogley may not be so full of praise then when his mates start feeling a hand on their collars).
7. Finally, he said that Joe Kennedy, who has been suspended, will be back at Greenfields in a few days.
The other stuff was not so important than what I have written above.
So, questions, is Joe Kennedy going back or not? I saw Joe Kennedy being driven to Greenfields on Wednesday afternoon - would be great to know whats going on.
If anyone has any information which I can publish here, I would be very happy to share it with the readers.
Please leave some comments. I will be publishing the reports written by Linda Dodds, Phil Dennett and Madeliene Davies in the next day or so.
Saturday, 17 May 2008
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Response to comments
Thank you for the comments.
Yes the Howard League and Community Care are aware of these issues and are following my blog.
I am in communication with both organisations and I have every faith in their abilities to remain independent and not swayed by the self protecting, self serving civil servants that have more to lose than most of us.
I would again encourage anyone reading this to tell their story, good or bad.
You can contact me in confidence on www.thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com or contact the Howard League in relation custodial and youth justice matters. You can contact them through www.howardleague.org.
Community Care would also be happy to speak with people. Maria Ahmed has been following the Jersey story since August last year and has done a fantastic job with regular updates in the magazine and online at www.communitycare.co.uk
Yes the Howard League and Community Care are aware of these issues and are following my blog.
I am in communication with both organisations and I have every faith in their abilities to remain independent and not swayed by the self protecting, self serving civil servants that have more to lose than most of us.
I would again encourage anyone reading this to tell their story, good or bad.
You can contact me in confidence on www.thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com or contact the Howard League in relation custodial and youth justice matters. You can contact them through www.howardleague.org.
Community Care would also be happy to speak with people. Maria Ahmed has been following the Jersey story since August last year and has done a fantastic job with regular updates in the magazine and online at www.communitycare.co.uk
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Howard League for Penal Reform
As you may be aware the Howard league for Penal reform are currently in Jersey to look at Greenfields and the Young Offenders Institution at La Moye.
The Howard League for Penal Reform is the oldest penal reform charity in the UK. It was established in 1866 and is named after John Howard, one of the first prison reformers. The Howard League for Penal Reform is entirely independent of government and is funded by voluntary donations.
The Howard League became involved last August after I telephoned them anonymously and asked them to make contact with Stuart Syvret as he would be able to give them information about Greenfields and the child protection system in Jersey that may be of interest to them.
Fortunately Stuart was made a ministerial decision before he was dimissed from his post as Health Minister to set out the terms of reference for the propsed review by the Howard League.
It is this letter and the subsequent terms of reference that I want to focus on. It appears on the face of it that the States of Jersey have failed to carry out that ministerial decision. Of course there may be a perfectly rational explanation for this, but read below and see what you think.
The ministerial decision made by Stuart Syvret is as follows:
"Letter to Director, Howard League for Penal Reform. (MD-HSS-2007-0053)
Decision Reference: MD-H SS-2007-0053
Decision Summary Title (File Name):
Letter to Director, Howard League for Penal Reform
Date of Decision Summary: 30 August 2007
Decision Summary Author: Mike Pollard, Chief Executive
Date of Written Report: 28 August 2007
Written Report Author: Senator Stuart Syvret
Subject: To commission an investigation and appraisal by the Howard League for Penal Reform.
Decision(s): The Minister decided to commission an investigation and appraisal by the Howard League for Penal Reform as per the Ministers letter of 28 August 2007
Reason(s) for Decision: As per Minister’s letter of 28 August , a copy of the “Grand Prix” arrangements, advice from Mr C Callender dated 23 August 2007
Action required: To undertake a comprehensive assessment into “areas of enquiry” as per 1-9 of the Ministers’ letter to Ms Crook dated 28 August 2007.
Position: Minister Health and Social Services Department
Date Signed: 30 August 2007
Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed): 28 August 2007
Senator Stuart Syvret
Minister, Health & Social Services
The Letter that this Ministerial decision refers to is as follows:
"28th August 2007
Frances Crook
Director, Howard League for Penal Reform
1 Ardleigh Road
London
N1 4HS
Dear Ms Crook
I am extremely grateful that the Howard League has taken an interest in events in Jersey. As you may have been told by your colleagues, a number of issues are causing some of us deep concern.
My purpose in writing is to request and invite the Howard League for Penal Reform to send a team to Jersey to undertake a completely independent and comprehensive examination of the whole sphere of child and young person custody in Jersey.
I issue this invitation as Minister for Health & Social Services, States of Jersey. As the politician with legal and political responsibility for child welfare and protection, I am lawfully empowered to initiate whatever enquiries I consider necessary into child welfare and protection issues.
My understanding and strong wish would be that you publish your report once completed; though obviously taking whatever necessary steps to protect the anonymity of victims and witnesses if anonymity is their wish.
A range of information has recently come into my possession which leads me to be concerned that the island may not be meeting appropriate standards of care and support for children and young people in custody.
For example, it was recently brought to my attention by a whistleblower that children – already very damaged, confused and angry young people – were being subjected to the routine coercive and punitive use of solitary confinement in the Jersey secure unit. This involved 24 hours solitary confinement upon admission to the unit in a locked bedroom, with 1 hour allowed out for exercise – but even this 1 hour was “behaviour dependent”. However worse than this was the solitary confinement in locked cells known as the “Pits”. These were featureless cement cells with a concrete bed. Again, the 1 hour exercise was behaviour dependent.
The so-called “Grand Prix” document clearly states that any child confined to the “Pits” would have their bedding and mattress removed for most of the day, only to be returned in the evenings.
Children who had emotional and behavioural difficulties that displeased management would often be confined for longer than 24 hours. We are aware of one damaged young man who was in solitary confinement in the “Pits” for 2 weeks.
The public debate triggered by my concerns has also led to other child custody issues being brought to my attention. A significant number of people, including staff, former staff, social workers and victims have contacted me. This has led to my initial concerns developing to take in other issues in relation to child custody.
These are issues that require some urgent attention from an organisation like the Howard League. The welfare of the children and the freshness of evidence will be best served by a speedy initiation of any review. For example, if a team from the Howard League were able to come to Jersey and, at least, begin its work in the next few weeks, that would be excellent. Were it possible to begin sooner – then even better.
The Howard League is a completely independent organisation. I absolutely respect this and do not, therefore, attempt to prescribe in any way the work you may consider necessary, nor the methodology you might use, in the course of an enquiry into the custody of children and young people in Jersey.
Therefore, what I describe below should not be seen as any kind of fixed ‘terms of reference’. Instead I offer these areas of enquiry merely as suggestions and background information based upon grass-roots feed-back I have received from the community.
The team from the Howard League will receive full and frank co-operation and assistance from the States of Jersey.
In my opinion and that of a number of other people in Jersey, including professionals who work with these children, the areas of enquiry would usefully be:
1: The imprisonment of children in the Jersey secure unit now known as Greenfields. (Previously known as Les Chenes)
The regime as it was until October last year at which date the use of the so-called “Grand Prix” policy of coercive and punitive solitary confinement was halted after the intervention of a whistleblower?
The experiences of the children who were subjected to the “Grand Prix” regime over the period of years it was in use?
The particular experiences of those children subjected to solitary confinement for 24 hours or longer. For example, one child was held in solitary confinement in the “Pits” for 2 weeks?
Whether the use of the “Grand Prix” regime, especially those parts of it involving coercive solitary confinement for periods of 24 hours or more, could be considered an unlawful breach of the human rights of these children?
Whether the use of the “Grand Prix” regime of coercive solitary confinement could be reasonably considered to be harmful to children?
Whether the use of the “Grand Prix” regime of coercive solitary confinement could be considered to be an unlawful breach of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002?
Whether such a regime could ever be regarded as appropriate and acceptable, not only in the 21st century, but in recent decades?
The regime as it is now, that is, post-October 2006?
Whether the current regime meets all relevant Human Rights and other legal requirements?
Whether, even if lawful, the regime was or is appropriate and beneficial for the children confined?
Notwithstanding the fact that the building was recently re-modelled, is the
physical structure and amenity of the facility appropriate to meet the needs of children residents?
2: The imprisonment of children at the Greenfields unit, prior to the introduction of the “Grand Prix” regime.
Were the policies and practices used against children at Greenfields prior to the introduction of the “Grand Prix” regime always appropriate, lawful and beneficial to the children?
Were the policies and practices used against children at the secure unit during the period of some years when it was known as Les Chenes always appropriate, lawful and beneficial to the children?
3: The imprisonment of children in the former secure unit in Jersey, know as Haute de la Garren.
Were the policies and practices used against children at Haute de la Garren always appropriate, lawful and beneficial to the children?
4: The imprisonment of children/young people at the Jersey Young Offenders Institution at La Moye prison.
Are the policies and practices used against children and young people in the Jersey Y.O.I today, appropriate, lawful and beneficial to the children and young people?
Were the past policies and practices used against children and young people at the Jersey Y.O.I appropriate, lawful and beneficial to the children and young people?
Is the physical structure and amenity of the Y.O.I facility appropriate to meet the needs of the children and young person residents?
5: Children and young people and the law.
Do children and young people have appropriate access to effective and competent legal representation in Jersey, given the absence of a UK style legal aid system?
Do children and young people have appropriate access to effective advocacy of their needs and concerns?
Are the overarching policies and practices of the States of Jersey in respect of the criminalisation, prosecution and sentencing of children and young people appropriate, constructive and beneficial to the children and young people?
Do the overarching policies and practices of the States of Jersey in respect of the criminalisation, prosecution and sentencing of children and young people actually work? That is, how successful are such policies and approaches in contributing to the engendering of self-worth and stable lifestyles of children and young people?
6: The effectiveness, or otherwise, of Governance, oversight and regulation within a small, self-governing jurisdiction such as Jersey.
Can the past Governance, oversight and regulatory approaches in respect of the imprisonment of children and young people in Jersey be considered effective, safe and robustly impartial?
Can the present Governance, oversight and regulatory approaches in respect of the imprisonment of children and young people in Jersey be considered effective, safe and robustly impartial?
7: Inter-agency working.
Do the various agencies with a role to play in law enforcement, prosecution, custody and welfare of children work in an effective and co-ordinated manner?
Are all such agencies supplied with appropriate legislative and policy guidance by the island’s government?
8: Justice for victims.
Could the Howard League, perhaps through advertisements, media comments and the use of local out-reach agencies encourage those who have been subject to the regimes, or similar, described above during recent decades to make contact?
Could the Howard League assist any person or group of people who may have been treated unlawfully in any of the regimes above, to seek justice?
9: Any other areas of enquiry or investigation that the Howard League for Penal Reform consider necessary.
Were the Howard League able to undertake an independent enquiry we would be most grateful. As stated above, the independence of your organisation is fully respected. The paragraphs numbered 1 to 9 above are suggested simply as guidance as these are the areas of concern that have been raised by many people.
Should you prefer to work to different terms, those of your own choosing, that would be perfectly acceptable.
As I said earlier in this letter, the sooner the Howard League could come and begin its review, the better. Any ongoing mistreatment will be rooted out that much sooner; evidence will be fresher; the memories of witnesses will be clearer.
Also, the sooner your work begins, the more difficult it will become for any person, who might wish to do such things, to create obstructions to your work.
I understand that the Howard League, as an independent organisation, would prefer to receive no government payment for the undertaking of its investigations? If that is your wish it will, of course, be respected. But given the range of issues that might need examining over a period of some time, resource considerations may arise. In which case the Health & Social Services Department can meet any reasonable expense.
Thank you very much for agreeing to undertake an enquiry. It will be of immense benefit to the troubled young people of our community.
Yours sincerely
Senator Stuart Syvret
Minister, Health & Social Services
States of Jersey
As you can see this letter is concise, informative and transparent.
To recap, this was a Ministerial decision made in August 2007 by Senator Stuart Syvret in his post as Health Minister.
It is now May 2008 and the Howard League are in Jersey undertaking the review as agreed.
The terms of reference that are being used for this review bare no resemblance to the letter by Stuart Syvret whatsoever.
The Press Release given by the Howard League on the 3rd March 2008 states:
"The review has the following terms of reference, agreed with the Jersey government:
• To examine existing policies and procedures to safeguard the welfare and wellbeing of children in the penal system in Jersey and to make recommendations about how these may be improved."
Interestingly the new terms do not refer to anything which is can be classed as historical. Note the opening line which states, 'To examine existing policies and procedures..."
In conclusion, how has this change occurred?
How is that a Ministerial Decision which was made in August 2007 has seeminlgy been ignored by March 2008?
Can anyone answer this question for me?
The Howard League for Penal Reform is the oldest penal reform charity in the UK. It was established in 1866 and is named after John Howard, one of the first prison reformers. The Howard League for Penal Reform is entirely independent of government and is funded by voluntary donations.
The Howard League became involved last August after I telephoned them anonymously and asked them to make contact with Stuart Syvret as he would be able to give them information about Greenfields and the child protection system in Jersey that may be of interest to them.
Fortunately Stuart was made a ministerial decision before he was dimissed from his post as Health Minister to set out the terms of reference for the propsed review by the Howard League.
It is this letter and the subsequent terms of reference that I want to focus on. It appears on the face of it that the States of Jersey have failed to carry out that ministerial decision. Of course there may be a perfectly rational explanation for this, but read below and see what you think.
The ministerial decision made by Stuart Syvret is as follows:
"Letter to Director, Howard League for Penal Reform. (MD-HSS-2007-0053)
Decision Reference: MD-H SS-2007-0053
Decision Summary Title (File Name):
Letter to Director, Howard League for Penal Reform
Date of Decision Summary: 30 August 2007
Decision Summary Author: Mike Pollard, Chief Executive
Date of Written Report: 28 August 2007
Written Report Author: Senator Stuart Syvret
Subject: To commission an investigation and appraisal by the Howard League for Penal Reform.
Decision(s): The Minister decided to commission an investigation and appraisal by the Howard League for Penal Reform as per the Ministers letter of 28 August 2007
Reason(s) for Decision: As per Minister’s letter of 28 August , a copy of the “Grand Prix” arrangements, advice from Mr C Callender dated 23 August 2007
Action required: To undertake a comprehensive assessment into “areas of enquiry” as per 1-9 of the Ministers’ letter to Ms Crook dated 28 August 2007.
Position: Minister Health and Social Services Department
Date Signed: 30 August 2007
Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed): 28 August 2007
Senator Stuart Syvret
Minister, Health & Social Services
The Letter that this Ministerial decision refers to is as follows:
"28th August 2007
Frances Crook
Director, Howard League for Penal Reform
1 Ardleigh Road
London
N1 4HS
Dear Ms Crook
I am extremely grateful that the Howard League has taken an interest in events in Jersey. As you may have been told by your colleagues, a number of issues are causing some of us deep concern.
My purpose in writing is to request and invite the Howard League for Penal Reform to send a team to Jersey to undertake a completely independent and comprehensive examination of the whole sphere of child and young person custody in Jersey.
I issue this invitation as Minister for Health & Social Services, States of Jersey. As the politician with legal and political responsibility for child welfare and protection, I am lawfully empowered to initiate whatever enquiries I consider necessary into child welfare and protection issues.
My understanding and strong wish would be that you publish your report once completed; though obviously taking whatever necessary steps to protect the anonymity of victims and witnesses if anonymity is their wish.
A range of information has recently come into my possession which leads me to be concerned that the island may not be meeting appropriate standards of care and support for children and young people in custody.
For example, it was recently brought to my attention by a whistleblower that children – already very damaged, confused and angry young people – were being subjected to the routine coercive and punitive use of solitary confinement in the Jersey secure unit. This involved 24 hours solitary confinement upon admission to the unit in a locked bedroom, with 1 hour allowed out for exercise – but even this 1 hour was “behaviour dependent”. However worse than this was the solitary confinement in locked cells known as the “Pits”. These were featureless cement cells with a concrete bed. Again, the 1 hour exercise was behaviour dependent.
The so-called “Grand Prix” document clearly states that any child confined to the “Pits” would have their bedding and mattress removed for most of the day, only to be returned in the evenings.
Children who had emotional and behavioural difficulties that displeased management would often be confined for longer than 24 hours. We are aware of one damaged young man who was in solitary confinement in the “Pits” for 2 weeks.
The public debate triggered by my concerns has also led to other child custody issues being brought to my attention. A significant number of people, including staff, former staff, social workers and victims have contacted me. This has led to my initial concerns developing to take in other issues in relation to child custody.
These are issues that require some urgent attention from an organisation like the Howard League. The welfare of the children and the freshness of evidence will be best served by a speedy initiation of any review. For example, if a team from the Howard League were able to come to Jersey and, at least, begin its work in the next few weeks, that would be excellent. Were it possible to begin sooner – then even better.
The Howard League is a completely independent organisation. I absolutely respect this and do not, therefore, attempt to prescribe in any way the work you may consider necessary, nor the methodology you might use, in the course of an enquiry into the custody of children and young people in Jersey.
Therefore, what I describe below should not be seen as any kind of fixed ‘terms of reference’. Instead I offer these areas of enquiry merely as suggestions and background information based upon grass-roots feed-back I have received from the community.
The team from the Howard League will receive full and frank co-operation and assistance from the States of Jersey.
In my opinion and that of a number of other people in Jersey, including professionals who work with these children, the areas of enquiry would usefully be:
1: The imprisonment of children in the Jersey secure unit now known as Greenfields. (Previously known as Les Chenes)
The regime as it was until October last year at which date the use of the so-called “Grand Prix” policy of coercive and punitive solitary confinement was halted after the intervention of a whistleblower?
The experiences of the children who were subjected to the “Grand Prix” regime over the period of years it was in use?
The particular experiences of those children subjected to solitary confinement for 24 hours or longer. For example, one child was held in solitary confinement in the “Pits” for 2 weeks?
Whether the use of the “Grand Prix” regime, especially those parts of it involving coercive solitary confinement for periods of 24 hours or more, could be considered an unlawful breach of the human rights of these children?
Whether the use of the “Grand Prix” regime of coercive solitary confinement could be reasonably considered to be harmful to children?
Whether the use of the “Grand Prix” regime of coercive solitary confinement could be considered to be an unlawful breach of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002?
Whether such a regime could ever be regarded as appropriate and acceptable, not only in the 21st century, but in recent decades?
The regime as it is now, that is, post-October 2006?
Whether the current regime meets all relevant Human Rights and other legal requirements?
Whether, even if lawful, the regime was or is appropriate and beneficial for the children confined?
Notwithstanding the fact that the building was recently re-modelled, is the
physical structure and amenity of the facility appropriate to meet the needs of children residents?
2: The imprisonment of children at the Greenfields unit, prior to the introduction of the “Grand Prix” regime.
Were the policies and practices used against children at Greenfields prior to the introduction of the “Grand Prix” regime always appropriate, lawful and beneficial to the children?
Were the policies and practices used against children at the secure unit during the period of some years when it was known as Les Chenes always appropriate, lawful and beneficial to the children?
3: The imprisonment of children in the former secure unit in Jersey, know as Haute de la Garren.
Were the policies and practices used against children at Haute de la Garren always appropriate, lawful and beneficial to the children?
4: The imprisonment of children/young people at the Jersey Young Offenders Institution at La Moye prison.
Are the policies and practices used against children and young people in the Jersey Y.O.I today, appropriate, lawful and beneficial to the children and young people?
Were the past policies and practices used against children and young people at the Jersey Y.O.I appropriate, lawful and beneficial to the children and young people?
Is the physical structure and amenity of the Y.O.I facility appropriate to meet the needs of the children and young person residents?
5: Children and young people and the law.
Do children and young people have appropriate access to effective and competent legal representation in Jersey, given the absence of a UK style legal aid system?
Do children and young people have appropriate access to effective advocacy of their needs and concerns?
Are the overarching policies and practices of the States of Jersey in respect of the criminalisation, prosecution and sentencing of children and young people appropriate, constructive and beneficial to the children and young people?
Do the overarching policies and practices of the States of Jersey in respect of the criminalisation, prosecution and sentencing of children and young people actually work? That is, how successful are such policies and approaches in contributing to the engendering of self-worth and stable lifestyles of children and young people?
6: The effectiveness, or otherwise, of Governance, oversight and regulation within a small, self-governing jurisdiction such as Jersey.
Can the past Governance, oversight and regulatory approaches in respect of the imprisonment of children and young people in Jersey be considered effective, safe and robustly impartial?
Can the present Governance, oversight and regulatory approaches in respect of the imprisonment of children and young people in Jersey be considered effective, safe and robustly impartial?
7: Inter-agency working.
Do the various agencies with a role to play in law enforcement, prosecution, custody and welfare of children work in an effective and co-ordinated manner?
Are all such agencies supplied with appropriate legislative and policy guidance by the island’s government?
8: Justice for victims.
Could the Howard League, perhaps through advertisements, media comments and the use of local out-reach agencies encourage those who have been subject to the regimes, or similar, described above during recent decades to make contact?
Could the Howard League assist any person or group of people who may have been treated unlawfully in any of the regimes above, to seek justice?
9: Any other areas of enquiry or investigation that the Howard League for Penal Reform consider necessary.
Were the Howard League able to undertake an independent enquiry we would be most grateful. As stated above, the independence of your organisation is fully respected. The paragraphs numbered 1 to 9 above are suggested simply as guidance as these are the areas of concern that have been raised by many people.
Should you prefer to work to different terms, those of your own choosing, that would be perfectly acceptable.
As I said earlier in this letter, the sooner the Howard League could come and begin its review, the better. Any ongoing mistreatment will be rooted out that much sooner; evidence will be fresher; the memories of witnesses will be clearer.
Also, the sooner your work begins, the more difficult it will become for any person, who might wish to do such things, to create obstructions to your work.
I understand that the Howard League, as an independent organisation, would prefer to receive no government payment for the undertaking of its investigations? If that is your wish it will, of course, be respected. But given the range of issues that might need examining over a period of some time, resource considerations may arise. In which case the Health & Social Services Department can meet any reasonable expense.
Thank you very much for agreeing to undertake an enquiry. It will be of immense benefit to the troubled young people of our community.
Yours sincerely
Senator Stuart Syvret
Minister, Health & Social Services
States of Jersey
As you can see this letter is concise, informative and transparent.
To recap, this was a Ministerial decision made in August 2007 by Senator Stuart Syvret in his post as Health Minister.
It is now May 2008 and the Howard League are in Jersey undertaking the review as agreed.
The terms of reference that are being used for this review bare no resemblance to the letter by Stuart Syvret whatsoever.
The Press Release given by the Howard League on the 3rd March 2008 states:
"The review has the following terms of reference, agreed with the Jersey government:
• To examine existing policies and procedures to safeguard the welfare and wellbeing of children in the penal system in Jersey and to make recommendations about how these may be improved."
Interestingly the new terms do not refer to anything which is can be classed as historical. Note the opening line which states, 'To examine existing policies and procedures..."
In conclusion, how has this change occurred?
How is that a Ministerial Decision which was made in August 2007 has seeminlgy been ignored by March 2008?
Can anyone answer this question for me?
Monday, 12 May 2008
My Story - Part 6 (The response from the States of Jersey)
Sorry for the poor quality of this copy. If you double click the document it will show up much clearer.
This document was written by Marnie Baudains and was in response to my serious concerns complaint (whistleblowing) on the 2nd January 2007.
As you can see from the terms of reference there were three distinct investigations that resulted from my complaint.
I will take you through these investigations and their subsequent reports one by one and publish them on this blog for you to view and comment.
In doing so, I will post a blog in relation to each of the individuals who had responsibility in investigating or reviewing the findings, this will include, Phil Dennett, Linda Dodds, Madeleine Davies and let is not forget Marnie Baudains and Co.
One of the first issues which you may well have noticed is that my complaint made explicit reference to it being investigated externally. Clearly, this was not done, when I write about Marnie Baudain I will explain how I received virtually no support or unsolicited communication following on from my complaint and that there clearly was no intention to ever have the matter investigated externally or even independently for that matter.
Friday, 9 May 2008
My Story - Part 5 (The day I blew the whistle)
On Wednesday I wrote about the recruitment issues, yesterday I wrote about what can only be described as a re-introduction of one element of the grandprix system.
After reading through some paperwork last night I came across the following extracts from statements that staff had made in January and February 2007, as part of the investigation into my complaint.
"That three day system [referring to the pits in the grandprix system] was no longer happening, although young people could still spend the first 24 hours in their room..."
"SB [Simon Bellwood] was in the UK the following day and JK [Joe Kennedy] came in and changed everything SB had been doing. JK took over, took XX [young person] out of the classroom and locked him up, that was the beginning of things.
"It was as if [JK] was canvassing staff for evidence against SB."
"During the first meeting with Joe Kennedy and Phil Dennett staff were told that it was acceptable to lock a young person in their room for the first 24 hours after their admission or if they displayed poor behaviour. But during the second staff meeting there appeared to be some changes regarding locking young people in their rooms".
"Phil Dennett also told staff they were to use their own discretion regarding the 24-hour in room policy after admission, allowing more flexibility depending on the young person".
I thought I would share these with you as they further evidence the re-emergance of the grandprix system, albeit not in name but certainly in philosphy.
I submitted my complaint on 2nd Jnaury 2007. I left work that day at 1pm to go to the Doctor to get signed off work. I could no longer cope with Joe Kennedy and his side kick Phil Dennett.
I was very emotional, I telephoned Marnie Baudains, Directorate Manager of Social Services, in tears, to inform her that I wanted to see her to submit a complaint.
I visited her that afternoon, I also visited Mike Pollard, Chief Executive of Health and Social Services to submit the complaint to them both.
I will speak about these two individuals in a later blog as they need and deserve blogs all of their own!
I have attached my original Serious Concerns complaint in full below. For clarity, the Serious Concerns Policy which I used to submit this complaint is more widely known as the Whistleblowing policy; hence the name - The Whistleblower.
XXX XXXX
XXXX
XXXXX
Jersey JE3 XXX
Tel. 07797 XXXXXX
1 January 2007
To Whom It May Concern
I am the Centre Manager of the Greenfields Secure Centre. I was recruited from the UK by Joe Kennedy and Phil Dennett on a non-permanent J-category contract, and I have been in post since 1 August 2006. I now find myself in the difficult position of writing to express serious concerns about my line manager Joe Kennedy, Manager of Secure and Residential Services for the Children’s Executive.
My concerns are based on four areas:
1. I believe that Mr Kennedy’s conduct towards the vulnerable children and young people in the secure accommodation provision at the Greenfields Centre constitutes serious abuse.
In my holiday absence over Christmas, Mr Kennedy has enforced a behaviour management procedure that can potentially involve locking a young person in a room (known as single separation) for over 36 hours.
I believe that this contravenes all legislation, regulations and guidance concerning looked after children in secure accommodation, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Convention on Human Rights, Every Child Matters (2003), United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990), the Care Standards Act 2000 (National Minimum Standards for Children’s Homes), and The Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000.
Furthermore, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture 1987 stated that “solitary confinement can, in certain circumstances, amount to inhuman and degrading treatment; in any event, all forms of solitary confinement should be as short as possible.”
The Secure Accommodation Network (SAN) has produced documentation with the purpose of ensuring that staff working in secure children’s homes are clear about when and when to not use single separation. These clearly stipulate that “Single separation is considered as a last resort and all other efforts should be made to prevent this extreme action.”
The Lord Carlile of Berriew QC conducted an independent inquiry for the Howard League for Penal Reform (published January 2006) into, amongst other things, the use of solitary confinement in prisons, secure training centres and local authority secure children’s homes.
His recommendations were that solitary confinement should never be used as a punishment, the child should have access to an advocate, a child’s belongings should only ever be removed from their room if they pose a demonstrable risk to the child or others, and that ‘time out’ could be a useful technique for easing tension but should never be for more than a few minutes.
During my holiday absence over the Christmas period, Mr Kennedy had Bedroom 1 prepared as a room which now has only a bed, pillow, pillowcase, duvet, duvet cover, beanbag and toilet roll in it. Mr Kennedy has formally directed staff through the communications book at the secure centre to confine a young person to Bedroom 1 upon admission to Greenfields for a minimum period of 24 hours. The entry, dated 20 December 2006, reads, “All staff - as from today room one will now be the new admission room, where new admissions will be placed after full admission. They will remain in room one for twenty four hours with good behaviour. Should any unwanted behaviour be shown then the twenty fours hours may be started from the start of compliant behaviour”.
I am unable to leave this senior management directive unchallenged. As a social care worker registered with the General Social Care Council, I am bound by their Code of Practice for Social Care Workers 2002 which states:
“Social care workers are responsible for making sure that their conduct does not fall below the standards set out in this code and that no action or omission on their part harms the wellbeing of service users. The General Social Care Council expects social care workers to meet this code and may take action if registered workers fail to do so.”
2. Since the opening of the new secure children’s home on 8 October 2006, I have felt harassed and bullied by Mr Kennedy. I have implemented a number of changes within the secure provision in order to commence the process of bringing the service in line with UK National Standards, which is one of the tasks for which I was recruited, as expressly stated in my job description.
Mr Kennedy has disapproved of many of these changes. I have used the formal supervision process to raise my concerns with Mr Kennedy, but I have found him to be intimidating, oppressive, undermining, and manipulative. He has failed to respond to my frequent reasonable requests for support and collaboration, yet he repeatedly claims to be supporting me. He has rarely offered unsolicited positive feedback to me, but rather he has persistently and unfairly criticised me.
I have made Mr Kennedy aware of the fact that I feel bullied by him, and I have raised my concerns with his line manager, Phil Dennett. To date, I have not formalised my complaint against Mr Kennedy, but I now feel that his harassment and bullying has become intolerable. I fear that my employment in Jersey is now in jeopardy due to Mr Kennedy’s victimising behaviour towards me.
3. I believe that Mr Kennedy’s professional practice contravenes the States of Jersey Code of Conduct. My witness of Mr Kennedy’s actions relating to recruitment, grievance and disciplinary procedures, for example, evidences his failure to comply with States’ policies and approved practices. On one notable occasion, I challenged Mr Kennedy’s executive decision to overrule a promotion interview process which was Equal Opportunities compliant and conducted according to Human Resources policy. I have felt personally and professionally threatened by Mr Kennedy since this occasion.
4. In my position of Centre Manager, I have been informed of numerous incidences of malpractice, including sexual harassment and bullying, which are alleged to have occurred since Mr Kennedy has been employed by the Children’s Executive. It has been suggested on a number of occasions that members of staff have felt unable to formally raise these concerns about Mr Kennedy for fear of reprisal. As their manager, I feel I have a duty to advocate for them and I hope that this formal complaints process will offer them protection and enable them to express their concerns in confidence.
I am in the process of expressing my concerns about the professional practice I am experiencing at Greenfields to the British Association of Social Workers (BASW), of which I am a member. The Association has a duty to ensure as far as possible that its members discharge their ethical obligations and are afforded the professional rights which are necessary for the safeguarding and promotion of the rights of service users. The Association’s Code of Ethics expresses the values and principles which are integral to social work and to give guidance on ethical practice, and it is binding on all members.
Prior to raising this serious concern, I examined all relevant States policies. I am worried that, should this matter be investigated internally, members of staff at Greenfields will not come forward because they will not trust the confidentiality of their disclosures. I trust that this will not occur as it would contravene the Policy on Reporting Serious Concerns. My opinion is that the only means of safeguarding the openness, probity and accountability of an investigation into my serious concerns will be an external investigation or independent inquiry.
Mr Kennedy wrote to me on 29 December to explain that I will not be continuing in the post of Centre Manager at Greenfields after the end of my probation period on 31 January 2007 “unless there is a marked and sustained change”. Mr Kennedy has thus far set no SMART targets or objectives for me, so any change or improvement in the current situation would be totally open to his interpretation.
I strongly feel that Mr Kennedy has no intention of keeping me in post after the end of January. Mr Kennedy is aware that I feel strongly about his directive to lock up vulnerable young people in single separation to punish them, and I will not be able to condone his professional practice which I believe is abusive.
I have supporting information regarding my concerns and written information explaining what action I have taken to date. I hope that you will act swiftly in this matter.
I look forward to hearing from you by telephone at your earliest convenience. I request that this matter remain in the strictest confidence until I have spoken with you directly.
Yours faithfully
Simon Bellwood
cc Mike Pollard
Marnie Baudains
Phil Dennett
After reading through some paperwork last night I came across the following extracts from statements that staff had made in January and February 2007, as part of the investigation into my complaint.
"That three day system [referring to the pits in the grandprix system] was no longer happening, although young people could still spend the first 24 hours in their room..."
"SB [Simon Bellwood] was in the UK the following day and JK [Joe Kennedy] came in and changed everything SB had been doing. JK took over, took XX [young person] out of the classroom and locked him up, that was the beginning of things.
"It was as if [JK] was canvassing staff for evidence against SB."
"During the first meeting with Joe Kennedy and Phil Dennett staff were told that it was acceptable to lock a young person in their room for the first 24 hours after their admission or if they displayed poor behaviour. But during the second staff meeting there appeared to be some changes regarding locking young people in their rooms".
"Phil Dennett also told staff they were to use their own discretion regarding the 24-hour in room policy after admission, allowing more flexibility depending on the young person".
I thought I would share these with you as they further evidence the re-emergance of the grandprix system, albeit not in name but certainly in philosphy.
I submitted my complaint on 2nd Jnaury 2007. I left work that day at 1pm to go to the Doctor to get signed off work. I could no longer cope with Joe Kennedy and his side kick Phil Dennett.
I was very emotional, I telephoned Marnie Baudains, Directorate Manager of Social Services, in tears, to inform her that I wanted to see her to submit a complaint.
I visited her that afternoon, I also visited Mike Pollard, Chief Executive of Health and Social Services to submit the complaint to them both.
I will speak about these two individuals in a later blog as they need and deserve blogs all of their own!
I have attached my original Serious Concerns complaint in full below. For clarity, the Serious Concerns Policy which I used to submit this complaint is more widely known as the Whistleblowing policy; hence the name - The Whistleblower.
XXX XXXX
XXXX
XXXXX
Jersey JE3 XXX
Tel. 07797 XXXXXX
1 January 2007
To Whom It May Concern
I am the Centre Manager of the Greenfields Secure Centre. I was recruited from the UK by Joe Kennedy and Phil Dennett on a non-permanent J-category contract, and I have been in post since 1 August 2006. I now find myself in the difficult position of writing to express serious concerns about my line manager Joe Kennedy, Manager of Secure and Residential Services for the Children’s Executive.
My concerns are based on four areas:
1. I believe that Mr Kennedy’s conduct towards the vulnerable children and young people in the secure accommodation provision at the Greenfields Centre constitutes serious abuse.
In my holiday absence over Christmas, Mr Kennedy has enforced a behaviour management procedure that can potentially involve locking a young person in a room (known as single separation) for over 36 hours.
I believe that this contravenes all legislation, regulations and guidance concerning looked after children in secure accommodation, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Convention on Human Rights, Every Child Matters (2003), United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990), the Care Standards Act 2000 (National Minimum Standards for Children’s Homes), and The Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000.
Furthermore, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture 1987 stated that “solitary confinement can, in certain circumstances, amount to inhuman and degrading treatment; in any event, all forms of solitary confinement should be as short as possible.”
The Secure Accommodation Network (SAN) has produced documentation with the purpose of ensuring that staff working in secure children’s homes are clear about when and when to not use single separation. These clearly stipulate that “Single separation is considered as a last resort and all other efforts should be made to prevent this extreme action.”
The Lord Carlile of Berriew QC conducted an independent inquiry for the Howard League for Penal Reform (published January 2006) into, amongst other things, the use of solitary confinement in prisons, secure training centres and local authority secure children’s homes.
His recommendations were that solitary confinement should never be used as a punishment, the child should have access to an advocate, a child’s belongings should only ever be removed from their room if they pose a demonstrable risk to the child or others, and that ‘time out’ could be a useful technique for easing tension but should never be for more than a few minutes.
During my holiday absence over the Christmas period, Mr Kennedy had Bedroom 1 prepared as a room which now has only a bed, pillow, pillowcase, duvet, duvet cover, beanbag and toilet roll in it. Mr Kennedy has formally directed staff through the communications book at the secure centre to confine a young person to Bedroom 1 upon admission to Greenfields for a minimum period of 24 hours. The entry, dated 20 December 2006, reads, “All staff - as from today room one will now be the new admission room, where new admissions will be placed after full admission. They will remain in room one for twenty four hours with good behaviour. Should any unwanted behaviour be shown then the twenty fours hours may be started from the start of compliant behaviour”.
I am unable to leave this senior management directive unchallenged. As a social care worker registered with the General Social Care Council, I am bound by their Code of Practice for Social Care Workers 2002 which states:
“Social care workers are responsible for making sure that their conduct does not fall below the standards set out in this code and that no action or omission on their part harms the wellbeing of service users. The General Social Care Council expects social care workers to meet this code and may take action if registered workers fail to do so.”
2. Since the opening of the new secure children’s home on 8 October 2006, I have felt harassed and bullied by Mr Kennedy. I have implemented a number of changes within the secure provision in order to commence the process of bringing the service in line with UK National Standards, which is one of the tasks for which I was recruited, as expressly stated in my job description.
Mr Kennedy has disapproved of many of these changes. I have used the formal supervision process to raise my concerns with Mr Kennedy, but I have found him to be intimidating, oppressive, undermining, and manipulative. He has failed to respond to my frequent reasonable requests for support and collaboration, yet he repeatedly claims to be supporting me. He has rarely offered unsolicited positive feedback to me, but rather he has persistently and unfairly criticised me.
I have made Mr Kennedy aware of the fact that I feel bullied by him, and I have raised my concerns with his line manager, Phil Dennett. To date, I have not formalised my complaint against Mr Kennedy, but I now feel that his harassment and bullying has become intolerable. I fear that my employment in Jersey is now in jeopardy due to Mr Kennedy’s victimising behaviour towards me.
3. I believe that Mr Kennedy’s professional practice contravenes the States of Jersey Code of Conduct. My witness of Mr Kennedy’s actions relating to recruitment, grievance and disciplinary procedures, for example, evidences his failure to comply with States’ policies and approved practices. On one notable occasion, I challenged Mr Kennedy’s executive decision to overrule a promotion interview process which was Equal Opportunities compliant and conducted according to Human Resources policy. I have felt personally and professionally threatened by Mr Kennedy since this occasion.
4. In my position of Centre Manager, I have been informed of numerous incidences of malpractice, including sexual harassment and bullying, which are alleged to have occurred since Mr Kennedy has been employed by the Children’s Executive. It has been suggested on a number of occasions that members of staff have felt unable to formally raise these concerns about Mr Kennedy for fear of reprisal. As their manager, I feel I have a duty to advocate for them and I hope that this formal complaints process will offer them protection and enable them to express their concerns in confidence.
I am in the process of expressing my concerns about the professional practice I am experiencing at Greenfields to the British Association of Social Workers (BASW), of which I am a member. The Association has a duty to ensure as far as possible that its members discharge their ethical obligations and are afforded the professional rights which are necessary for the safeguarding and promotion of the rights of service users. The Association’s Code of Ethics expresses the values and principles which are integral to social work and to give guidance on ethical practice, and it is binding on all members.
Prior to raising this serious concern, I examined all relevant States policies. I am worried that, should this matter be investigated internally, members of staff at Greenfields will not come forward because they will not trust the confidentiality of their disclosures. I trust that this will not occur as it would contravene the Policy on Reporting Serious Concerns. My opinion is that the only means of safeguarding the openness, probity and accountability of an investigation into my serious concerns will be an external investigation or independent inquiry.
Mr Kennedy wrote to me on 29 December to explain that I will not be continuing in the post of Centre Manager at Greenfields after the end of my probation period on 31 January 2007 “unless there is a marked and sustained change”. Mr Kennedy has thus far set no SMART targets or objectives for me, so any change or improvement in the current situation would be totally open to his interpretation.
I strongly feel that Mr Kennedy has no intention of keeping me in post after the end of January. Mr Kennedy is aware that I feel strongly about his directive to lock up vulnerable young people in single separation to punish them, and I will not be able to condone his professional practice which I believe is abusive.
I have supporting information regarding my concerns and written information explaining what action I have taken to date. I hope that you will act swiftly in this matter.
I look forward to hearing from you by telephone at your earliest convenience. I request that this matter remain in the strictest confidence until I have spoken with you directly.
Yours faithfully
Simon Bellwood
cc Mike Pollard
Marnie Baudains
Phil Dennett
Thursday, 8 May 2008
My Story - Part 4 (Did the grandprix system come back from the dead???)
Before I embark on the next chapter, I just wanted to point out to readers that a previous blog post of mine made mention to an email account I had set up for readers to contact me anonymously if they preferred.
The email address is thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com
You can use this and I will ensure it remains confidential. I am the only person who knows the password.
The Story continues...
On 15th December 2006, shortly after the battle over recruitment, I left the island to spend Christmas with my family in the UK.
On my return I walked into Greenfields and it felt as if I had not been there for years. I felt out of place, there was a deathly silence amongst the staff group when I walked in a room. Something was going on and I was confused and very uncomfortable.
I read the communications book, which I had introduced for staff to inform each other of significant information more effectively than is possible with traditional memos and all staff read the book at the start of each shift and signed their name. I was aware that this would inform me of any significant events that had occurred during the two weeks I was on annual leave.
From what I read I was little surprise that staff were feeling very uncomfortable around me.
There were a few significant entries in the book, but for the purpose of this blog post I want to focus on one.
On the 20th December 2006 an entry had been written as follows,
"All staff as from today room one will now be the new admissions room, where new admissions will be placed after full admission. They will remain in room one for twenty four hours with good behaviour. Should any unwanted behaviour be shown then the twenty four hours may be started from the start of compliant behaviour".
Now, before I move on, I want us to consider these words more closely. It suggests does it not, that an allocated room will be used for all new young people arriving? It also suggests that they will remain there for 24 hours. Furthermore, it goes on to say that should they do something wrong then the 24 hours can start again. Yes?
Right, now lets look at the wording of the grandprix system document which I posted on this blog back in April.
The grandprix system policy states;
"You will have been placed in a bedroom (depending on your behaviour and attitude to staff), where you will spend 24 hours".
Are there any similarities or is it just my imagination?
On the morning of 29th December, after arriving back from annual leave a member of staff asked me what they should do about a young person who was locked in their room (the young person had arrived the previous evening). I explained that until I speak with Joe Kennedy they must do what they had been told to do in my absence.
There response was, "okay fine, he can stay in his room then".
I have told you about this point, not to blame the member of staff, but to highlight that all the staff were very clear that this entry in the communications book was telling them to do what they had previously done with the grandprix system when young people arrived.
The first 24 hours was always in solitary confinement, albeit with some time for exercise, meals and a little staff interaction.
I submitted my Serious Concerns complaint the next working day - I will talk about this in my next blog. Before I do this, I want to share a snippet of the response from senior managers who are highly paid and responsible for the Greenfields service.
As a result of my complaint one part of the investigation was done by Phil Dennett, Coordinator of the Children's Executive, and amongst other things, he looked into this new admissions procedure that I have highlighted above.
In his report he wrote that he had interviewed the member of staff who had written the entry in the communications book on 20th December.
In his report he states,
"7.4 On re-reading her own communication she stated that she could see how it might have been open to mis-interpretation."
A convenient perspective you may think?
However, the story doesn't end there - the person who wrote this entry into the communications book, who then later realised how unfortunate her wording was, is the same person who has been alleged to have been having an affair with Joe Kennedy. The same person that has been suspected of being promoted because of this alleged affair.
This is a very difficult story for me to tell on such a public forum - I am not doing this out of any bitterness or malice for any one individual and I am sorry that this blog may cause them some embaressment or discomfort.
We have all been dragged into what has become a very political battlefield and this I believe is the only way to force change in the system and stop the culture of concealment and oppression against those who dare to speak out.
Please help me fight for justice so that children who find themselves at the mercy of the children's service tomorrow will get a better deal that the ones who are there today.
The email address is thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com
You can use this and I will ensure it remains confidential. I am the only person who knows the password.
The Story continues...
On 15th December 2006, shortly after the battle over recruitment, I left the island to spend Christmas with my family in the UK.
On my return I walked into Greenfields and it felt as if I had not been there for years. I felt out of place, there was a deathly silence amongst the staff group when I walked in a room. Something was going on and I was confused and very uncomfortable.
I read the communications book, which I had introduced for staff to inform each other of significant information more effectively than is possible with traditional memos and all staff read the book at the start of each shift and signed their name. I was aware that this would inform me of any significant events that had occurred during the two weeks I was on annual leave.
From what I read I was little surprise that staff were feeling very uncomfortable around me.
There were a few significant entries in the book, but for the purpose of this blog post I want to focus on one.
On the 20th December 2006 an entry had been written as follows,
"All staff as from today room one will now be the new admissions room, where new admissions will be placed after full admission. They will remain in room one for twenty four hours with good behaviour. Should any unwanted behaviour be shown then the twenty four hours may be started from the start of compliant behaviour".
Now, before I move on, I want us to consider these words more closely. It suggests does it not, that an allocated room will be used for all new young people arriving? It also suggests that they will remain there for 24 hours. Furthermore, it goes on to say that should they do something wrong then the 24 hours can start again. Yes?
Right, now lets look at the wording of the grandprix system document which I posted on this blog back in April.
The grandprix system policy states;
"You will have been placed in a bedroom (depending on your behaviour and attitude to staff), where you will spend 24 hours".
Are there any similarities or is it just my imagination?
On the morning of 29th December, after arriving back from annual leave a member of staff asked me what they should do about a young person who was locked in their room (the young person had arrived the previous evening). I explained that until I speak with Joe Kennedy they must do what they had been told to do in my absence.
There response was, "okay fine, he can stay in his room then".
I have told you about this point, not to blame the member of staff, but to highlight that all the staff were very clear that this entry in the communications book was telling them to do what they had previously done with the grandprix system when young people arrived.
The first 24 hours was always in solitary confinement, albeit with some time for exercise, meals and a little staff interaction.
I submitted my Serious Concerns complaint the next working day - I will talk about this in my next blog. Before I do this, I want to share a snippet of the response from senior managers who are highly paid and responsible for the Greenfields service.
As a result of my complaint one part of the investigation was done by Phil Dennett, Coordinator of the Children's Executive, and amongst other things, he looked into this new admissions procedure that I have highlighted above.
In his report he wrote that he had interviewed the member of staff who had written the entry in the communications book on 20th December.
In his report he states,
"7.4 On re-reading her own communication she stated that she could see how it might have been open to mis-interpretation."
A convenient perspective you may think?
However, the story doesn't end there - the person who wrote this entry into the communications book, who then later realised how unfortunate her wording was, is the same person who has been alleged to have been having an affair with Joe Kennedy. The same person that has been suspected of being promoted because of this alleged affair.
This is a very difficult story for me to tell on such a public forum - I am not doing this out of any bitterness or malice for any one individual and I am sorry that this blog may cause them some embaressment or discomfort.
We have all been dragged into what has become a very political battlefield and this I believe is the only way to force change in the system and stop the culture of concealment and oppression against those who dare to speak out.
Please help me fight for justice so that children who find themselves at the mercy of the children's service tomorrow will get a better deal that the ones who are there today.
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
My Story - Part 3 (Recruitment)
I have been avoiding writing this part of the story for some time. I have even considered giving up writing this blog altogether. Partly because I am tired of fighting and partly because I have been struggling with the moral dilemma of publishing the events that occurred.
That said, I cannot stop here. The truth needs to be told and whilst this information is highly sensitive and perhaps controversial it is none the less part of my story and was a fundamental part of my employment at the Greenfields Secure Centre.
In November 2006 I was asked by Joe Kennedy, along with Micheal Bowyer (Manager of La Preference children's home), to conduct interviews for internal candidates to be promoted to senior grade child care officers.
In a senior management meeting we discussed the process and it was agreed by Joe Kennedy that we did not require anyone from the Human Resources Department to be present on the interview panel as Michael Bowyer held the "Certificate to Practice" (training in conducting interviews so no HR presence would be required), although I did not hold this certificate I had been involved in interviewing staff for a number of years prior to coming to Jersey.
The interviews were carried out and Joe Kennedy played no part in the process whatsoever.
Joe Kennedy did request however that we feed back our conclusions to him at the end.
All applicants were internal and they were all interviewed, therefore there was no shortlisting process. From the interviews we agreed that four candidates met the criteria to be eligible for promotion, and there were three available posts. We ranked the four candidates in order of how they performed throughout the interview process, from the initial application form, their written piece, and the formal interview.
Prior to feeding back to Joe Kennedy, Michael Bowyer suggested to me that Joe Kennedy would not agree with our decision. I stated that this was not an issue as we had conducted the interviews and that I was 100% sure that we had followed all relevant policies and procedures and that our decision was final.
We gave the feedback to Joe Kennedy, but as suspected, he raised concerns about the person that we had ranked highest of the four. I was satisfied that our decision was correct and fair as it had been based on the whole interview process. During this meeting, despite Michael Bowyer having already stated to me that we were likely to receive opposition about our conclusions from Joe Kennedy because we knew that he would prefer to promote certain members of staff rather than others, he backed down and agreed for Joe Kennedy to have the overall decision on who should receive the promotion - this was despite the fact that Joe Kennedy had not been part of the interview process. If this were to be the case why bother having interviews at all?
A long discussion followed and Joe Kennedy made it very difficult for me to stand by my decision and I felt very intimidated, bullied and pressured by Joe Kennedy and said that I needed more time to consider the situation and would get back to him in the morning as a way in which to end the meeting which I found to be very difficult emotionally.
The following morning, having spent considerable time thinking about it, I upheld that the first three should be promoted because the interview process had been fair and robust. However, Joe Kennedy stated that, despite my view, he would make an “executive decision” not to promote the highest ranking candidate in favour of the lowest ranking candidate.
I was not happy with this decision and informed Joe Kennedy of this, he replied by saying that that was what he was doing and if I did not like it then I could make a complaint. This amounted to a short meeting of only a few minutes and Joe Kennedy ended it as soon as this had been said.
I then spoke to Phil Dennett, Joe Kennedy's line manager (that's another story in itself) and the following day Joe Kennedy sent me an email saying that he had reflected on the conversation and suggested that the four candidates be subjected to a matrix style evaluation.
My response proposed that, given the sensitivity of this issue, HR should be involved to ensure that the matter was done fairly and in line with equal opportunities and HR policies.
Despite their involvement, Joe Kennedy still maintained that the person placed lowest should be appointed based on their past experience.
My concern, apart from Joe Kennedy's decision being a breach of the recruitment policies was that I had heard from a number of staff that Joe Kennedy had, or was still having, an affair with the fourth ranked candidate. In fact, according to these sources, this was widely known amongst the staff group and Joe Kennedy had been seen kissing the member of staff on more than one occasion.
I made no moral judgement on Joe Kennedy for this and informed him as such, but if it were to be true, I was deeply concerned that Joe Kennedy had overruled the outcome of an interview process and as such would result in someone being promoted with whom he was personally involved - to the detriment of the highest ranking candidate.
I felt that any recruitment process should be fair, robust, carried out in accordance with equal opportunities legislation and HR compliant as well as being able to withstand scrutiny should this process ever get challenged.
Any deviation from the process at Joe Kennedy's instruction would leave me, as the interviewer, accountable.
After I had raised this in private with Joe Kennedy, he decided they could make both No1 and No4 positions training posts. Although not in agreement with this strategy I felt that this at least provided the highest ranking candidate an opportunity to prove her capabilities, if I had not agreed then this candidate simply would not have had a chance to prove her ability.
Following on from this episode I was shortly placed on Garden Leave after submitting my Serious Concerns complaint.
As a result of my complaint, Madeleine Davies, was asked to investigate, amongst other things, the saga surrounding this recruitment.
He conclusion - Simon Bellwood failed to adhere to the Recruitment Code. Yes, that's right, I was at fault, no mention of the alleged affair at all.
More on Madeline Davies and her fiasco of an investigation another day.
Incidentally though, one of the reasons that Joe Kennedy is currently suspended from his post is to ascertain whether he did have an inappropriate relationship with that member of staff and whether or not he did use his authority to gain this person a promotion.
For the record - I am absolutely 100% sure that I was not in breach of the recruitment code, without question - this has also been confirmed by Gerald White who is investigating the disciplinary issues against Joe Kennedy.
I would welcome any views on this part of the story - this does not sit at all comfortably with me but I am at a loss on how else to tell the true story. I even avoided using names in the employment tribunal so that it would not be publicised by the media who were present, however, the Chair made it clear that it was an issue that needed to be discussed.
The States of Jersey have continually chosen not to listen to me, they have refused my appeals on all counts, and even criticised me publicly - I feel that I have no choice but to use a forum such as this so that I can tell the truth.
Hopefully, the States of Jersey will one day start thinking about what they do to people and realise that they need to listen to those who have genuine concerns and act accordingly.
I appreciate that this information may be potentially harmful to some people, particularly Joe Kennedy, however, I will not allow my story to remain untold for such a reason.
Many people may be feeling sorry for Joe Kennedy at the moment but spare a thought for me - me and my family still struggle to find the money to pay the rent each month because of what this man and others did to me. Lets not forget that I also had a very successful career which I had worked hard for 15 years to achieve, now, thanks to these people, it is all gone - in Jersey at least.
That said, I cannot stop here. The truth needs to be told and whilst this information is highly sensitive and perhaps controversial it is none the less part of my story and was a fundamental part of my employment at the Greenfields Secure Centre.
In November 2006 I was asked by Joe Kennedy, along with Micheal Bowyer (Manager of La Preference children's home), to conduct interviews for internal candidates to be promoted to senior grade child care officers.
In a senior management meeting we discussed the process and it was agreed by Joe Kennedy that we did not require anyone from the Human Resources Department to be present on the interview panel as Michael Bowyer held the "Certificate to Practice" (training in conducting interviews so no HR presence would be required), although I did not hold this certificate I had been involved in interviewing staff for a number of years prior to coming to Jersey.
The interviews were carried out and Joe Kennedy played no part in the process whatsoever.
Joe Kennedy did request however that we feed back our conclusions to him at the end.
All applicants were internal and they were all interviewed, therefore there was no shortlisting process. From the interviews we agreed that four candidates met the criteria to be eligible for promotion, and there were three available posts. We ranked the four candidates in order of how they performed throughout the interview process, from the initial application form, their written piece, and the formal interview.
Prior to feeding back to Joe Kennedy, Michael Bowyer suggested to me that Joe Kennedy would not agree with our decision. I stated that this was not an issue as we had conducted the interviews and that I was 100% sure that we had followed all relevant policies and procedures and that our decision was final.
We gave the feedback to Joe Kennedy, but as suspected, he raised concerns about the person that we had ranked highest of the four. I was satisfied that our decision was correct and fair as it had been based on the whole interview process. During this meeting, despite Michael Bowyer having already stated to me that we were likely to receive opposition about our conclusions from Joe Kennedy because we knew that he would prefer to promote certain members of staff rather than others, he backed down and agreed for Joe Kennedy to have the overall decision on who should receive the promotion - this was despite the fact that Joe Kennedy had not been part of the interview process. If this were to be the case why bother having interviews at all?
A long discussion followed and Joe Kennedy made it very difficult for me to stand by my decision and I felt very intimidated, bullied and pressured by Joe Kennedy and said that I needed more time to consider the situation and would get back to him in the morning as a way in which to end the meeting which I found to be very difficult emotionally.
The following morning, having spent considerable time thinking about it, I upheld that the first three should be promoted because the interview process had been fair and robust. However, Joe Kennedy stated that, despite my view, he would make an “executive decision” not to promote the highest ranking candidate in favour of the lowest ranking candidate.
I was not happy with this decision and informed Joe Kennedy of this, he replied by saying that that was what he was doing and if I did not like it then I could make a complaint. This amounted to a short meeting of only a few minutes and Joe Kennedy ended it as soon as this had been said.
I then spoke to Phil Dennett, Joe Kennedy's line manager (that's another story in itself) and the following day Joe Kennedy sent me an email saying that he had reflected on the conversation and suggested that the four candidates be subjected to a matrix style evaluation.
My response proposed that, given the sensitivity of this issue, HR should be involved to ensure that the matter was done fairly and in line with equal opportunities and HR policies.
Despite their involvement, Joe Kennedy still maintained that the person placed lowest should be appointed based on their past experience.
My concern, apart from Joe Kennedy's decision being a breach of the recruitment policies was that I had heard from a number of staff that Joe Kennedy had, or was still having, an affair with the fourth ranked candidate. In fact, according to these sources, this was widely known amongst the staff group and Joe Kennedy had been seen kissing the member of staff on more than one occasion.
I made no moral judgement on Joe Kennedy for this and informed him as such, but if it were to be true, I was deeply concerned that Joe Kennedy had overruled the outcome of an interview process and as such would result in someone being promoted with whom he was personally involved - to the detriment of the highest ranking candidate.
I felt that any recruitment process should be fair, robust, carried out in accordance with equal opportunities legislation and HR compliant as well as being able to withstand scrutiny should this process ever get challenged.
Any deviation from the process at Joe Kennedy's instruction would leave me, as the interviewer, accountable.
After I had raised this in private with Joe Kennedy, he decided they could make both No1 and No4 positions training posts. Although not in agreement with this strategy I felt that this at least provided the highest ranking candidate an opportunity to prove her capabilities, if I had not agreed then this candidate simply would not have had a chance to prove her ability.
Following on from this episode I was shortly placed on Garden Leave after submitting my Serious Concerns complaint.
As a result of my complaint, Madeleine Davies, was asked to investigate, amongst other things, the saga surrounding this recruitment.
He conclusion - Simon Bellwood failed to adhere to the Recruitment Code. Yes, that's right, I was at fault, no mention of the alleged affair at all.
More on Madeline Davies and her fiasco of an investigation another day.
Incidentally though, one of the reasons that Joe Kennedy is currently suspended from his post is to ascertain whether he did have an inappropriate relationship with that member of staff and whether or not he did use his authority to gain this person a promotion.
For the record - I am absolutely 100% sure that I was not in breach of the recruitment code, without question - this has also been confirmed by Gerald White who is investigating the disciplinary issues against Joe Kennedy.
I would welcome any views on this part of the story - this does not sit at all comfortably with me but I am at a loss on how else to tell the true story. I even avoided using names in the employment tribunal so that it would not be publicised by the media who were present, however, the Chair made it clear that it was an issue that needed to be discussed.
The States of Jersey have continually chosen not to listen to me, they have refused my appeals on all counts, and even criticised me publicly - I feel that I have no choice but to use a forum such as this so that I can tell the truth.
Hopefully, the States of Jersey will one day start thinking about what they do to people and realise that they need to listen to those who have genuine concerns and act accordingly.
I appreciate that this information may be potentially harmful to some people, particularly Joe Kennedy, however, I will not allow my story to remain untold for such a reason.
Many people may be feeling sorry for Joe Kennedy at the moment but spare a thought for me - me and my family still struggle to find the money to pay the rent each month because of what this man and others did to me. Lets not forget that I also had a very successful career which I had worked hard for 15 years to achieve, now, thanks to these people, it is all gone - in Jersey at least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)