St Sampson’s deputy angered by ‘hypocrisy’ of parochial voting
Monday 2nd February 2009, 2:29PM GMT.
THE only St Sampson’s deputy to vote for the closure of her parish school is fed up with States hypocrisy.
Sam Maindonald (pictured) said many States members were too easily swayed by emotions and too aware of the political dangers of taking unpopular choices to do what they had promised. She accused her fellow parish deputies, including Chief Minister Lyndon Trott, of turning against their better judgement.
‘If many of the St Sampson’s deputies did not have the parish issue I think they would not have made that decision,’ she said.
‘I am really angry – especially to see the chief minister sitting there gloating. It was the first test of policy and it crumbled.
‘The chief minister, when he was Treasury minister, brought the zero-10 strategy to the States and he has always fully supported it as being absolutely right. Yet what he did on Friday was clearly contradictory to that policy.’
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Is this not the same lady who voted 800k for a main drain (road near new school) in her parish for about 12 houses one month before an election?
My, my these deputies have short memories – unlike me!
Report abuse
I agree totally with the sentiments of Deputy Maindonald in this article.
I believe it was clear cut for educational, practical and economic reasons that both schools concerned should have been shut. Clearly Education bottled proposing the closure of both schools from the outset, as Minister Steere advocated. However I believe they knew the emotive, as so often it does in Guernsey politics, would play so strong a card that any hope of rational decision making in the States would play against them. Sadly this proved to be the case and why I respond to this article with despair.
Clearly this island has to make savings and be prudent. This was true at the time of the 0-10 decision, exacerbated now by the global economic downturn, none us knows how this will affect Guernsey but it surely must.
The States had a clear opportunity to save money with no loss of service and to send a strong message to other States departments and the public that they mean to lead this island through difficult times by making hard but necessary decisions for the long term welfare of us all.
But no, it shows the majority of our States members can see no further than the emotive and become involved in, and swayed by rhetoric. The PTA’s from both schools have to be congratulated on the vigour and organisation of their campaign to raise public emotion. A job well done, it certainly duped a majority of our politicians.
What hope for the future when a decision to save money can’t be made where actual cuts in service are not being proposed, just a re-organisation? When the next emotive issue comes forward where it will mean a cut in service clearly this States body will not have the stomach or resolve to make savings and will always bow down to well organised pressure groups who play on the emotive. Where will this lead us, to borrowing and long term debt or rising taxes? I am sick to the teeth as a tax payer at the way our money has been wasted by successive States assemblies with endless overspends and an unwillingness to make difficult choices. I can only surmise by this latest decision there is no will by a majority of deputies in the present States to change this approach.
I believe this island, now more than ever, needs clear, rational and strong leadership to steer us through difficult challenges, not a body of people who insist on putting their heads in the sand, led it would appear by none other than the Chief Minister.
Report abuse
Ron
How cn you say “I believe it was clear cut for educational, practical and economic reasons” because it certainly wasn’t clear from the Policy Letter in the Billet.
Even the policy letter said that beoth schools wre performing well as educational establishments.
The Billet made clear that the proposal was as a result of the reorganisation started about 20 years ago.
Perhaps those who were emotive were those who failed to critically read the Billet. How the 18 or so deputies could vote fo the closure of a school, without any real facts, makes clear the vote was based on emotions, rather than educational reasons.
For those who bothered to read and reflecton the Billet there was only one outcome – that refelcted in both votes.
Report abuse
Ron is right. The closure of these two schools would have/should have led to significant cost savings at a time when every penny counts – and without detriment to the education of the children involved.
Commentators on this thread who maintain otherwise seem to be of the “two wrongs make a right” mentality. Sure, there are plenty of opportunities within Education and every other States department to trim the fat, not least within the small army of bureaucrats that run them, but that’s no reason for ‘saving’ these two inefficient and unnecessary little schools.
As Ron says, here was a clear opportunity for the States to send out the clear message that they are serious about putting the brakes on rampant public spending. Sadly, the day was one by glad handing parochial populists like Quin and O’Hara who conveniently ignore the bigger picture. Unlike them and unlike our Chief Minister, Deputy Maindonald showed she is capable of rising above parish pump politics to make courageous decisions on behalf of the whole island. We need more people like her in the States.
Report abuse
Stephen,
I think you will find that Ron speaks with some authority on the matter, having been a well-respected headteacher. As happens all too often, his, and others’ opinions are ignored in favour of emotive reasoning and endeavours by politicians to maintain popular support.
The outcome of the States’ decision is not just the preservation of one (or indeed two schools) – it will impact the provision of education in all local schools as expenditure will have to be reviewed.
Report abuse
The vote on the main drain was nothing whatsoever to do with the election. When the States voted to build the new schools, I made it clear in that debate (June 2004) that the States would also have to approve measures to improve the drainage in the area and to implement traffic calming measures – neither of which had been considered or even budgeted for at the time of the initial debate, but which all members came to appreciate had to be dealt with as a direct consequence of the schools being built.
It was a complete failing of the system, and nothing whatsoever to do with my short memory and/or any political plotting on my behalf, that it took a Requete to get the PSD to address the significant issue of the drainage and that it took the ED almost 4 years after the first debate to address the traffic calming measures.
Report abuse
Jon
I know who Ron Depres is. He was a primary head.
All I am concerned with is the content of the Policy Letter in the Billet. its contradictions, and general lack of direction.
I am also aware that some deputies voted for the closure on one school when the Billet contained no case for its closure, in fact the recommendation was to retain St Andrew’s
How rational is that? How emotionsl is that?
I presume most islanders would like a decision on school closure to be made on better quality information than was contained in the Billet.
Report abuse
Yes it was all St Sampson’s deputies voted along parish lines, save LT who was absent. Fact.
Report abuse
So you’ve read the Billet and that makes you an expert does it, Stephen John? But when you ask those who really do know their subject you will find out that practically every Guernsey educationalist who does not have a vested emotive interest* in this matter was/still is in favour of the closure of BOTH schools – for the reasons so ably outlined by Ron Depres (a real expert) in this thread.
*teachers and former teachers at the two schools
Report abuse
But why does that mean that the vote was anything to do with the election?
The issue had been dragging on since June 2004 when the States voted to build the schools. The delay in bringing the Requete was down to Deputy Rihoy and PSD, who delayed on making a decision as to whether they would do the work or not.
The PTC in 2002/3 had already told residents that the work would be done as a direct consequence of the schools being built in that area.
The PSD, due to a lack of money, decided to go against the PTC decision.
Deputy Rihoy had already told residents that he would bring a Requete on the matter and committed himself to do so.
All St Sampson’s deputies were aware of the concerns and the potential consequences to residents if the work was not done.
If the Requete had been brought in 2005, the outcome would still have been the same.
The election had nothing whatsoever to do with the bringing of the Requete and/or the Requete had nothing whatsoever to do with the outcome of the election.
Report abuse
Martyn
Just how many current members of the staff of both St Andrew’s and St Sampson’s schools wanted their schools closed?
After all, you have made the claim that “practically every Guernsey educationalist…” who you define as “teachers and former teachers at the two schools” wanted the schools to close.
I am sure parents at both schools will be interested in this and want some vrification of the claim that “practically every Guernsey educationalist” wanted closure of their schools.
Your postings, and that of Ron Depres, seem to concentrate on, to quote your earlier post “As Ron says, here was a clear opportunity for the States to send out the clear message that they are serious about putting the brakes on rampant public spending”.
I prefer school closure to be for sound educational reasons rather than political reasons. I would regard cutting expenditure as a reason as being political.
If that offends you, so be it.
Report abuse
I think you have misread my post Stephen. I was trying to make the point that the only educationalists NOT in favour of closing the two schools are those with the clear vested interest of being associated directly with them.
I have spoken with a number of teachers/educationalists who are not directly involved with these two schools. People who can see the bigger picture in other words. Educational professionals and experts who can see the woods for the trees. To a man they cannot see the point in keeping them open. That’s because we are not talking about a CUT in core education services but a long overdue rationalisation of those services to make them more cost effective.
As for your distinction between the educational and political reasons for closing schools, from my perspective the States made a decision to keep them going purely for POLITICAL reasons. Any decision made purely for educational reasons would have seen both of them closed!
Report abuse
It’s called democracy. Those who lost – get over it and move on.
Report abuse
Martyn
One thing we can agree with is that the decisions about the schools were made on political grounds.
There was precious little in the Billet to justify the closure of either school on educational grounds.
There may well be good educational grounds for the closure of the schools, but they were not apparent in the Billet.
I would appreciate if you can spare a minute or two to set out the educational reasons for the closure of both schools. Are there any other reasons other than reorganisation?
Report abuse
Interesting the lib dems today are talking about reduction in class sizes for infants to 15.
Report abuse
I am really confused by statements above that Ron Despres is an expert in educational finance. His posting above shows no evidence of that whatsoever.
True, he makes one or two assertions, but we see no evidence of his expertise.
I am sure the States can make economies to fill the black hole before they have to consider cutting services and crippling the community.
The appointment, discussed on Radio G yesterday, of someone (from outside the island of course) to review the efficient running of States departments tends to confirm my view. And Nigel Lewis, the interviewed civil servant opined that savings would be forthcoming.
We will see, won’t we?
Report abuse
David, your emotive talk of ‘…cutting services and crippling the community’ is wrong and ridiculous.
Fact: the plan to close the schools was not a cut in services in any way, shape or form. The pupils involved would have received exactly the same level of education service at an alternative venue.
As for ‘crippling the community’ give us a break. We’re talking about children going to a different school just a short distance away on the island the size of a postage stamp. Ridiculous statement.
Report abuse
Seems to me the statement by David Cranch “I am sure the States can make economies to fill the black hole before they have to consider cutting services and crippling the community” is pefectly valid and reflects the general attitude of the States.
There are those of us who believe that there are significant savings to be made before the need for cutbacks.
Those who do not agree with this view are entitled so to do.
What they are not entilted to do is to regard such a view as ridiculous, even if their comment is narrowed down to the two schools debate.
In a civilsied debate people are entitled to views that don’t accord with your own particular take on a topic.
Report abuse