Jersey's Dean-- The True financial cost-- A "Very Expensive Mess???"

I was aware that at the recent General Synod held in York the Dean of Portsmouth the Very Reverend David Bindley had asked a question regarding the costs incurred following the fall out between the Bishop of Winchester and Jersey’s Dean. I applied for the actual written question and answer and have now received it. By coincidence it also coincided with leaked details of costs to BBC Radio Jersey who have kindly made them available to me.

The following is Rev. Bindley’s question:  

“What have been the Episcopal legal costs borne by the Church Commissioners in relation to the recent discussions between the Diocese of Winchester and the Channel Islands about safeguarding issues and Episcopal oversight?”

Mr Andreas Whittam Smith as First Church Estates Commissioner gave the following answer: 

“The Church Commissioners agreed with the diocese of Winchester we would pay 50% of the costs of the Steel investigation and the Gladwin visitation, both of which relate to safeguarding, though not to Episcopal oversight.  To date this has amounted to about £95,000 including all professional fees and expenses.  Further costs are expected to be incurred before the Steel report is published and the Gladwin visitation is concluded. The Commissioners have not paid any costs associated with the arrangements for Episcopal oversight in the Channel Islands.”

I seem to recall that at the outset of the investigations the sum of around £500k was being banded about as the likely cost, therefore the sum of £95k must have been a figure plucked from the air or paid at the early stage of proceedings because they do not in any way relate to the estimated cost or to the figures leaked to BBC Radio Jersey which are as follows: 

Church Commissioner Support to Winchester Diocese (Matched funding) £195K

Winchester direct expenditure £200k

 Gladwin Report fees (estimated) £ 50K. Steel Report fees (estimated) £ 50K,

 Dean’s legal fees £150K

 Estimated total £645K 

Bishop Dakin had been invited by Radio Jersey to comment on the figures but he declined, however Bishop Wilmot was interviewed. He promptly disputed the figures but declined to give the actual cost which seems self defeating.

The one thing we can all agree on is that lawyers do not come cheap so to claim that £95,000 covers all professional fees and expenses does raise eyebrows and I am far from convinced that the £95k will be anywhere near the final total.

It interesting to note that the Dean’s legal fees are estimated to be £150,000, which seems to be extortionate, hopefully they are wildly exaggerated but leads one to ask who should pay for the Dean’s legal fees, particularly as it was his handling of the abuse complaint which led to the very expensive events that followed.

When the former Police Chief Graham Power was suspended he received no financial assistance to challenge the decision or defending the allegations that followed. I am not advocating that the Dean should be placed in the same position but ask who is responsible for paying his legal expenses and is there a capping policy because the system is open to abuse.

I hope that when the final bill is paid a breakdown of the costs will be published because in addition to the legal fees nearly £400,000 has been spent by Church Commissioner Support to Winchester Diocese (Matched funding £195K) and Winchester direct expenditure (£200k). What is that expenditure for?

One also has to ask what have the ordinary Winchester and Jersey members of their congregations got for their money and will anyone be taken to task for what seems to be obscene expenditure? Whilst asking that question there is another, because it appears that as a result of the “temporary” oversight of Jersey from the Bishop Winchester to the Bishop of Dover it is likely to lead to the ordinary Jersey taxpayers, many who are not members of the Church of England paying for additional support for the Dean, why? 

Last month Deputy Le Fondre who has yet to ask of HG's welfare lodged another question in respect of the Dean’s hardship. The question to the Chief Minister was as follows,

Question

In view of the passing of interim Episcopal oversight from Winchester to Dover announced by the Dean of Jersey in the Assembly on 13th May 2014, and the recognition by the Deanery Synod on 3rd June 2014 of the additional administrative burdens laid upon the Dean in consequence, would the Chief Minister consider investigating the resources available to the Office of the Dean of Jersey and consider whether some assistance should be provided to support the Dean in the performance of his official duties?

Answer

I am content to consider the resources available to the Office of the Dean of Jersey and whether some assistance should be provided to support the Dean in his official duties. Although the Office of the Dean of Jersey is a non-Ministerial States funded body, and no Minister is responsible to the States Assembly for its administration or funding, given the unique circumstances, I am content to consider this matter, consult with the Deanery Synod and make recommendations.

The answer is interesting because no explanation is given as to what the unique circumstances are and why the” temporary” transfer should require additional resources.

At present the Office of the Dean of Jersey receives £25,900 per annum which if the Budget (page 169) is approved will rise to £26,100. No explanation is given as to why that sum is paid or what the expenditure is for. Perhaps Deputy Le Fondre will ask that question.

At the outset of the investigation, Bishop Gladwin described the situation as a mess. 15 months on he might agree that it is now  “a very expensive” mess.

Jersey's Dean, Victory or Climb Down ????

Yesterday there was a press release stating that the Dean had been reinstated. The news was met with jubilation by the Dean’s supporters who believed that the withdrawal of the Dean’s Commission had been unfair and in the words of Senator Bailhache “was disproportionate to any alleged failings of the Dean.”

There are others who believe that the reinstatement is a climb down or a U turn by the Bishop. It will be for the respective camps to justify their claims but I do not believe the reinstatement is a victory for Senator Bailhache but if there is a climb down by the Bishop, he is not alone. I do however believe the matter has been badly handled and the leading players are now attempting to justify decisions taken some weeks if not years ago.

I have always deplored lengthy suspensions because of the impact they not only have on the employee but also on their family. John Day and Graham Power and others were cruelly suspended for years yet unlike the Dean they were not supported by the Church, Chief Minister, and Senator Bailhache etc. Why? I understand that a police officer who had been suspended since last November has recently been told that his suspension has been lifted with no charges forthcoming but where was the outcry where were the prayers?

I am pleased that the Dean’s Commission has been reinstated because it now seems to have been a pointless exercise. However we are not party to what the “new Commission” is? The Bishop now appears to have acted decisively and humanely but questions need to be asked as to what was the real reason for the withdrawal in the first place? Normally suspensions are instigated to allow for the completion of investigations into the complaint; however the Investigation/Visitation has not been completed. So was the suspension because of the Dean’s failings or to bring him to heel?

For those who claim a victory or climb down it is worth reflecting on the Press Statement.

It should be noted that although the Dean has publicly apologised to HG he has not done so personally. I hope that along with the Bishop and Archbishop they will feel “humble, Christian and Godly enough” to meet HG and personally apologise to her, anything less is not an apology. This morning I heard the Dean and the Bishop’s interviews on Radio Jersey but little if anything was said about the lady at the centre of the affair. Why?

It is apparent that in addition to the apology, as part of the re-instatement “package” the Dean has effectively had to eat the proverbial “humble pie” and “climb down” by accepting the alleged failings referred to by Senator Bailhache.

1. He has confirmed that he shares the Bishop of Winchester’s and Archbishop of Canterbury’s stated commitment to safeguarding in the Diocese and the wider Church. (Did he not share that commitment before the suspension?)

2. He has also agreed that, in the light of recent events, there are areas in Jersey Canon Law which would benefit from further review and is committed to working with the Bishop as necessary to revise them. (Were these issues not discussed before the suspension, if not why not?)

3. He regrets the mistakes he made in the safeguarding processes and upon reflection, it would have been more helpful if he had co-operated more fully with the Korris Review. (What mistakes are being regretted and why did the Dean not co-operate with Jan Norris?)

4. He will be co-operating with the Visitation and Investigation announced by the Bishop on 26 March. Together with the Bishop he is committed to the importance of safeguarding children and vulnerable adults in Jersey and to working to ensure the safeguarding procedures of the Diocese achieve this as part of the whole Church's mission." (Surely as Dean, does he not have a duty to co-operate?)

In relation to the Visitation it should be recalled that in the Korris Report/Review the following potentially very serious matters came to light relating to the Dean which must be investigated as soon as possible these include;

1) Allowing a church warden to operate in contravention of the Safeguarding procedures and the training he had undertaken.

2) Failure to notify the Safeguarding Advisor on receipt of the complaint.

3) Failure to implement and act in accordance with Diocesan Safeguarding Procedure in the handling of the initial complaint interview.

4) Failure to record and make all documentation available for a review of a Safeguarding matter as required by the Safeguarding procedures.

5) Despite the request of the Bishop of Winchester, unwillingness to permit review of safeguarding practice and also discouraging others from participating.

The Report also stated that there will also be a need for an investigation into the deportation of H.G. on 11th October 2010 and why there is a complete lack of recording of this matter by Dean from the date of her arrest. (I will return to this matter later.)

Are these matters going to be addressed or will they be swept under the carpet as part of the “package deal?”

The way people in positions of responsibility process allegations of abuse is at the very heart of the complaint. We have seen how the BBC failed to address allegations of abuse about Jimmy Savile. His victim’s claims were conveniently ignored because of who people perceived Savile to be. The victims like HG were deemed to be trouble makers, but now it has been established that Savile was guilty, those who dealt with the initial allegations are now conveniently apologising for their “mistakes.” What a let off. What about the victims?

Jersey is so concerned about the reporting mechanism that in the impending Historic Abuse Inquiry that issue is part of the Terms of Reference. Yet it appears that the Dean’s handling of HG complaint can be dismissed by way of an admission that it was a mistake along with an apology which has not been given to HG. However was the complaint not dealt with properly because of whom the Church Warden was or was it a genuine mistake? Will the Visitation provide an answer?

HG is now being demonised because according to some people she has made a similar complaint before. I understand that allegation has no substance however if it was true, that does not deny her or anyone else being treated fairly when making a similar allegation. The Dean’s problem is not that he is the abuser but that he failed to address the matter in a professional way to which he has now accepted and apologised. So it matters not who the complainant is.

What has been forgotten is that it was not only the Dean who failed HG but so did the former Bishop of Winchester and the failures have had serious repercussions for her. In her quest for justice she did make regular email contact with both men, however to solve their problem HG was arrested early on a Sunday morning taken to the police station and detained overnight before appearing in court and being remanded in custody for two weeks. In previous Blogs I have mentioned the arrest and that I have asked the Chief Minister to instigate an investigation. Given the Dean’s admission to his failings surely HG is entitled to a review of her arrest and conviction.

Once I have further information about the arrest I will publish another Blog on the arrest. What is now is now evident is that after being convicted, HG was placed into a police car which called at her lodgings, she was not allowed to collect her belongings but was left in the car whilst a police officer collected some of her clothing before driving her to the airport and putting her on a plane. She arrived in Southampton in the dark with no support or friends to meet her. This is the way Jersey treats people who make abuse complaints. 

I heard Matthew Price on Radio Jersey this morning interviewing Bishop Dakin. Matthew repeatedly pressed the Bishop about HG’s welfare and official apology but he would not be forthcoming, no wonder HG has any confidence in the Church of England. However to her credit she is willing to see John Gladwin. I hope she fares better with that former Bishop.

For the convenience of new readers my 3 previous Blogs on the Dean’s suspension can be accessed by clicking onto the websites below.

Friday, 22 March 2013The Dean, Bishop and Good Shepherds, Fact or Fiction?

Wednesday, 3 April 2013The Dean---- And a Voice in the Wilderness 
 
Monday, 22 April 2013Jersey's Dean and the Victim's Tale