2

Sarkdog

If it ain’t broke, why fix it?

Report abuse

4

resident

Actually, it is broke, which is why it needs fixing. And the way Sark is right now is not the way it has always been.

Until 2008, the Seneschal was subject to reappointment every 3 years; he faced 40 Tenants, which had security of tenure. Since then, his appointment has been for life, and he is facing members who are vulnerable to losing their posts in an election. He has become much more powerful. The 2008 reform caused a serious – and historically both unprecedented and unjustified – imbalance of power in Chief Pleas, which needs to be corrected.

The Seneschal is unelected, for life, not accountable to anyone, he runs the parliament’s agenda, he controls debate, he is the chief judge, he is the electoral returning officer, he is the sole notary, he is the sole licensing authority, he sees all Chief Pleas Committee minutes (and he is the only one to do so, because they are confidential to everyone else – not even Chief Pleas members can see them), he represents the Island to the outside world, he is Trustee of Island assets – which means he, not the elected Conseillers, controls public assets. I find arguments that this is OK untenable. Go back to the old system, fine. Keep the current one, not fine.

Having said all the above, I’m sure you will be very surprised to hear that Reg was very keen to push the 2008 reform, kicking the Tenants out, through, but I understand is not so keen to have his own role reformed.

Where else in the world is this considered not broken? Did the Roman Emperor have such wide powers? Think about it. Apart from the fact he had the power to kill some people (life had a lot less value in those days, and many people had control of life over their slaves), I don’t think he had the extent of powers over his Roman subjects that the Seneschal today has over the people on Sark. Robert Mugabe has to face contested elections – he may have to rig them, but at least he has to face them. The Seneschal does not.

The role must be split, and there is no need for Chairman of Chief Pleas to be a paid role. He does no more work than regular members (indeed arguably less, since he does not, and cannot, sit on Committees) – so there is no reason why taxes should go up as a result.

Of course, that’s not to say our current Chief Pleas are going to do it this way, but there is certainly no NEED for the split role to cost the Sark taxpayer any money.

Report abuse

6

anon

It is amazing that in the latest edition of the Sark Newsletter that the editor is so sure that the person who wrote the above comment (resident | September 19, 2010 at 11:03 am) is ” written by a person wholly unconnected with the Sark Newsletter” Is it not true that this person believes themselves to be commenting anon, so how can the editors be so sure he/she does not indeed work for them ? Mind you the Sark Newsletter is full of such contradictions, take your pick this is just one.
Just an observation.
Anon

Report abuse

8

CJ

Same Anon as on the other thread? If so just want you to know that I did write to Lord McNally. Best of luck!

Report abuse