Say when.

I did not have an invite to attend the Chamber of Commerce pre-election debate. Doubtless my views on growth would have been most unwelcome at an event billed 'How do we promote growth? What are the implications? What are the Social and Environmental impacts? ' Did you spot the underlying assumption? http://www.jerseychamber.com/events/pre-election-debate

The chamber are not alone in this. If you have a spare £75 to attend the Institute of Directors annual debate, you can be enlightened by an esteemed panel on 'Should Jersey Relax Its Immigration Policy?; which goes on to ask 'what sort of impact a relaxation of immigration volumes would have on island life, and how a policy might be articulated that balances the needs of businesses, economic growth and islanders'. See it's there again.

 Politicians do the same. This is from the Treasury minister's blog http://www.ozouf.je/2014/08/property-tax-green-paper/ 'The treasury principles include..... Competition - property taxes should support the competitiveness of the economy and promote jobs and growth; '

 It is the sine qua non of Jersey government, the underlying unimpeachable, beyond question assumption: growth is good, desirable, the principal imperative.

Fortunately there was quite a good running commentary on twitter of the Chamber of Commerce debate. I was struck by a couple of the post event comments along the lines that there seems to be no way to resolve the problems. My logical head wants to point out what should be obvious when such a scenario arises : check your assumptions and review your constraints. Is it really true that growth is necessary, is it really the case that you need to increase the population to achieve growth? For many years I have held the answer to both of those questions is no. I find it of note that the view has gained considerable ground in the last decade, to the point where it is now possible to discuss it without simply being declared an economic ignoramus, or dangerous lunatic, possibly both.

 How does a concept like growth gain such an insidious hold on us, collectively? I think the answer is two fold. One part is in human psychology, the other in the nature of a society and particularly the experiences of those who influence and make decisions.

 In psychology related terms we have two well known observations. First, people tend to believe numerical evidence more readily than quantitative evidence, even though the latter might be better evidence Believe me, I was a research engineer, its true. They also like to have simple ways to rationalise and evaluate complex systems and data. It is far easier to point to a single measurable quantity such as GDP or GVA and see its value increasing as a good indicator, than it is to think through the interconnected web of resources and impacts. It is so much easier for a politician to sell growth than it is to debate the physical resource allocation that economics is really about.

 The second factor is that there are circumstances , not in government, where growth is almost always validly seen as good. It is not hard to grasp that for business owners growth is an indicator of success and unless handled badly (eg cash flow failure) is for them a desirable, enriching thing. Transposing that perception into government is easy, but it is incorrect. What is good for a business is not necessarily good for a society. A lot depends on externalities.

 A business is broadly in inward looking entity. Generally unless constrained by law, it is not concerned with what goes on outside of itself. Historically that lead to pollution and contamination problems as enterprises exported the waste and an external body picked up the costs of dealing with it. It is also the case that if a business grows by taking market from another and driving it out of business that is an externality. There is no cost born by the growing entity, but the tab for the resulting unemployment of former employees of the ceased business falls on the government. Similarly if a business decides to shed a stable but unprofitable operation in favour of a growing option, many of the costs are borne by society. Government does not have the same luxury. Civilized societies cannot simply shed 'excess' 'unproductive' people, any more than they can simply pollute their neighbours without consequence. Decisions in government are different from those in business, with different constraints, objectives and consequences. It is much more a zero sum game than for a business. Assumptions that are workable , even useful, in business are potentially a hindrance when applied to governance of a society.

 Organisations like the Chamber of Commerce and Institute of Directors promoting growth comes as no surprise in the light of the above. Of course we have many people of a similar background in the States. I have even heard people state that we need a States composed only of (successful) business people! What a disaster that would be; we already have a dearth of scientists, philosophers, artists etc to give a balance of outlook and experience.

 The inappropriate transference of the concept from business to government is not the only problem with growth. There are many. I do find it irritating when the term is used as some vague expression almost like a magic potion that when swallowed will simply make things better. What such people often mean is they want the expected and desirable results of economic growth , such as higher employment. Economic growth doesn't necessarily mean that will happen , it is quite conceivable of a situation where one has growth and fewer employed people.

 How growth is measured or determined is a further issue. Typically gross domestic product or some derivative of that is used. It is a measure of size, but it is crude. All paid activities count positively to size, even when they are clearly destructive in nature. Car accidents are a good example, obviously undesirable, but making a contribution towards GDP. David Suzuki has another example: that a corporation polluting a river. If the river has become polluted, an expensive program will be required to clean it up. Residents might buy expensive bottled water rather than cheaper tap water. Suzuki points to this new economic activity will raise GDP, and though the GDP has risen overall in the community the quality of life has decreased.

Third in my concerns over the use of growth as a measure of success or progress of a society is that it is significantly correlated with resource consumption. Logically when dealing with finite resources there has to be a limit to consumption, growth only hastens the depletion. I believe we are rapidly approaching a strongly resource constrained world, be it agricultural land, fresh water, oil or wood. We have faced single resource depletion before, such as whale oil, but to face several occurring concurrently is beyond humanities experience. Of course not all activities entail much, if any, material consumption or waste production. There is one hopes no limit to love, compassion, art , knowledge or understanding. It is a concept so important that it has its own term – sustainable development https://www.iisd.org/sd/

 There is also a philosophical point about growth that really needs to be made. I observe that we live in an age of immense material wealth compared to any other in history, at least for us in the 'developed' world. So wealthy that we discard more useful resources than most have ever had available to them. We have a society that frets and consumes resources to treat the symptoms of overindulgence, especially in health care. There is surely a point where our material appetites are satiated. There is a point, I hope, where we realise we do not need more stuff, we don't even want more stuff. It is more possible than most realise. If you find it hard to believe, and you might want to look up the Endowment Effect eg http://www.economist.com/node/11579107.

I have a simple question for those who want more growth. What is the criterion, the point at which we have grown enough? I have asked it numerous times of those who espouse growth and growing the economy , and never yet heard a solid answer. That ought to indicate something. The implication frightens me.

Utterly incomprehensible ineptitude

I am astounded that two director level staff from the Health department have been drafted in to collate evidence for the , ahem,  'Independent' CoI.  One of the two is a witness, the other probably should be.  That ought to be enough to rule them out. I cannot figure how anyone in their right mind could think that two people  from the department that back in June tried to deny  the CoI documents and only complied after a summons could in anyway be the people to do this sort of thing.

The very best spin you could put on it is that someone has been very inept thinking about how this presents to the world.  The alternative: there is something explosive to hide and someone is doing their level best to try keep it buried.

Juvenal had the right question.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2014/09/01/independence-of-historical-abuse-inquiry-could-be-undermined-warns-politician/

All political careers end in failure

“All political careers end in failure” is a maxim usually attributed to the logical genius but politically ineluctably detestable Enoch Powell.

May 2015 will be the 30th anniversary of my first candidature in a public election. I had of course already been a candidate, and often successfully so, to various bodies and organisations, including the National Union of Students and the national Liberal Ecology Group. This year it happens is the 25^th anniversary of my election as a County Councillor. Contesting elections is in my blood. I think it is a service to democracy when standing offers the electorate a distinctive choice they would not otherwise have. Given the peculiar first past the post voting system used in the UK, as here, that word distinctive is crucial. Having candidates of similar views standing against each other does not give more choice other than in the narrow sense of which person they 'like' more. In other places they either use primaries to sort out the differences upfront, or they use a preferential voting system.

People do not always stand to win the election. There are times when you are campaigning for a big challenging change and use the platform of an election to raise issues that are not otherwise being considered. I did that the last senatorial elections. And while the JEP delighted in repeatedly calling me a 'failed senatorial candidate' , it was only by standing that I was able to identify and contact like minded people and help use that to form Jersey Climate Action Network and Jersey in Transition.

Sometimes, however, the opportunity arises to go into the election with the purpose of winning and being in a position to argue and influence the course of policy and having a voice to raise issues in the public arena as they arise rather than being constrained to triennial  elections. When the current deputy of St Ouen declared he was not standing again, the possibility of standing with the aim of winning was clear. Of course there was much speculation about who might stand, and at least 7 names were mentioned. Of those only two were strongly progressive and ecologically minded. One was not standing for sure, the other I offered if they declared early on I would not stand against them. After some reflection they decided against and I then committed to standing , being as sure as I could be that I was likely the only environmentally minded  candidate, probably the only progressive.

Dutifully I notified the connetable so that I could be taken of the policing rota, I sorted out a proposer, who was very on board with the sustainability message (Thanks Mr R), and even had my pony tail cut. Helen and the children have never known me without it. Then things started to take a negative turn.

If you are unaware of it, a key prerequisite for standing, here as in the UK, is to have a proposer and 9 seconders on a duly completed form. I've never had a problem doing this, and it does not commit anyone to supporting you , to the extent I wonder if it really serves any purpose. Perhaps in the days when the number of electors would have been a couple of hundred, but not when it is in the thousands. I drew up a list of people in the parish I know and who have been supportive previously or made public comment in the past compatible with my campaign points. A couple had recently moved out of the parish, or taken a job with the States, and were unable or ineligible to sign. Fair enough. What did surprise me was that handful who said they were not prepared to sign as they were intending to vote for one of the early declared candidates because they were at school together, or think he's a nice person, even though they disagreed with them politically. I had no idea I was such an odiously disagreeable person that statement implies. Given what most people seem to think of politicians perhaps that should be taken as an unintended endorsement!

And then I heard the Russell Labey really was going to stand for deputy of the parish too. Given his high profile from the reform referendum campaign, and having been on local television for much of the '80's, I expected he would stand for senator where recognition is absolutely essential to being elected, and a real asset.

Having spoken to Russell about his standing it is clear we share a broadly liberal outlook on politics in general and would be campaigning on the same side on a couple of critical parochial issues, such as field 622. We would be seeking the same voters, and in doing so almost certainly let in one of the previously declared candidates with whom we both disagree on these points. So for some weeks now I have been struggling with the decision I have to make. Do I give up what is very likely my last and, until Russell declares, my best chance of being elected to the States, or not? From what I know of the declared candidates across the Island so far I do not see a likely champion for sustainable living, the organic growers, implementation of climate change plans, ending our mercury emissions, etc. There is no win-win scenario here. If this election is to be about personalities rather than policy then Russell is the better candidate. If it is to be about policy then both Russell and I lose if we both stand.

This is an incredibly hard thing to do personally. Assuming Russell does stand for deputy, as I believe , in effect it marks an ignominious end of my 30 year involvement in public elections. I feel wretchedly sorry and apologetic towards those people who desperately wanted to see a deep green voice back in the States (though Russell is far from a 'grey'!) . I have let them down. I am embarrassed at having to disappoint people in the parish who would have supported me. I feel so deflated. Much as I would love to carry on to have the platform and profile to raise in the States  those big issues on which our future depends, logic dictates the only sensible course of action for this election.  There are other ways of campaigning and there are other means to the end. 

Do not blame the victims

Public sessions of the Committee of Inquiry have started. What is clear to me is that a number of potential witnesses have not made submissions. This is a difficult problem. In a detached , logical analysis one would argue that witnesses should make submissions. The only way the COI can get to the whole truth is to have all the facts, and to do that they need the witness testimony. However we are here dealing with people, moreover people who have been in care and abused. The trust issues care leavers have with authorities are well known. One top of that there are various reasons I have come across for non participation in the COI. Some are simply disillusioned with the whole protracted proceedings, others fear that in our small island there will be reprisals and repercussions for them and their families if they tell what they know. Some think the set up is biased and just another level of cover up, while some simply cannot face going through it all again having already recounted their abuse to the police, and then again to the compensation scheme.

Unless you have been in care, suffered abuse or been on the receiving end of an establishment vendetta I dare say those objections might sound far fetched. However evidence that they are not has been in the UK press just this week. It is not comforting reading. I'll start with the death of Frances Andrade, who had given evidence about the abuse she suffered as a teenager at a music school. See http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/frances-andrade-death-mental-health-7508618 The coroner criticised mental health services for failing to provide proper care to her and he demanded that new rules are put in place to ensure that vulnerable witnesses are given better support when they face often traumatic trials. If the recent scrutiny report on CAMHS is any guide, the support here isn't great. See http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/ScrutinyReports/2014/Report%20-%20CAMHS%20-%2016%20June%202014.pdf The answer to a question asked April 1^st is also revealing. See http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyQuestions/2014/Deputy%20Tadier%20to%20HSS%20re%20Access%20to%20mental%20health%20services.pdf , where the minister does not refute that there is a significant waiting list for PATS.

We also had a critical report this week on the actions of the police in secretly gathering intelligence on justice campaigners. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/24/undercover-police-spying-justice-campaigns-20-years It wont surprise anybody that the UK police were engaged in this activity. The investigating officer said "I cannot justify the way this information was subsequently handled. Quite simply put, unless the information could have prevented crime or disorder, it should not have been retained and certainly not for the period it has been.” It reminded me of Operation Blast where Jersey police were keeping secret files on States members. Is it so incredible to think that witnesses whose testimony reflects badly on the police would be worried?

What of the political angle? Again just this week we have a national paper story “ Cover-up to protect politicians after abuse claims” see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28477179 Nigel Goldie, former assistant director of social services at Lambeth Council, said it appeared "high level decisions" were made not to explore allegations against public figures. Where have we heard that before? 11 cases prepared by police that were not prosecuted by the unchallengeable decision of the AG. We also had an sight into just how brazenly and unabashed the UK can be in looking after its own establishment interests. Baroness Butler-Sloss was eventually forced to step down from chairing the UK CSA inquiry. It is claimed she kept allegations about a Bishop out of an abuse report. The coup de grace however came when it emerged she might have to investigate decisions of her late brother, Sir Michael Havers, who was attorney general in the 1980s. It is widely reported that he actively limited the investigation into sex abuse at Kincora Boys' home. See http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5328/baroness-butler-sloss-faces-another-hitch-in-heading-csa-inquiry Siblings of a judicial dynasty covering the tracks of one of them covering up abuse couldn't possibly happen in Jersey , could it?

That UK inquiry isn't quite the same as ours in that it is focussed on child sexual abuse, rather than all abuse in care. Clearly though there is some significant overlap. If the UK inquiry were to encompass Jersey too some of those witnesses who have not come forward locally might feel more inclined to do so to the UK inquiry. I don't think there would be any problem having Jersey included in the UK inquiry, after all the UK government is responsible ultimately for Justice and good governance of the Island. And there most certainly are links between Jersey and the UK relating to child abuse. We know 5 children were sent here from Birmingham, one of whom has never subsequently been traced. We know that children from Islington, itself mired in abuse, were brought here by Rabet. Jersey born Rabet was charged in Thailand in 2006 with abusing 30 local boys. Jimmy Savile was a regular visitor here, and we know accusations were made concerning Wilfred Brambell while he performed here. When you see headlines like: “ David Cameron's historic sex abuse inquiries must find out if former prime ministers were involved” ,(

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-historic-sex-abuse-3846678 ) you have to think that other frequent visitor to Jersey, a former UK prime minster, is another link.

When the scale of Savile's abuse finally emerged (perhaps 1,000 victims, http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/18/jimmy-savile-abused-1000-victims-bbc ) it must have been quite apparent than a widespread and systematic cover up was happening over decades. That sort of thing does not happen unless it is sanctioned by very influential and powerful people. That's where the real blame lies. Perpetrators are of course the source of evil, but those who turned a blind eye, ignored or covered up the evidence or had investigations stifled and trashed are no less culpable. Had they acted properly the criminals would have been outed and jailed and there would have been far fewer victims. However these inquiries turn out it is not the victims who are to blame in any way.

Self-immolation of States members.

I had the radio on much of today to listen to the States sitting, in case they got to the Energy Plan. That's the one that finally lays out a strategy for us to meet our CO2 emissions reduction obligations under the Kyoto protocol . What I heard instead was the internal dialogue of States members debating (I use that term in its loosest sense) the machinery of Government. In practice they spent the morning debating whether to debate the issue. They then decided they should and proceeded to vote to give the Chief Minister much more power over his ministers. Note the wording I chose there deliberately for they become in effect the CM's minister, not the Assembly's.

The other day they voted not to have a public election for Chief Minister, it is going to remain the preserve of the Assembly. They also rejected a proposition to restrict the Chief Minister, Treasury Minister and External Affairs Minister to senators. While there would have been definite logic in that it also would have had the odd effect that next election at the same time as doing that we'll have a referendum on implementing Clothier, that if passed would extinguish the role of Senator. I cannot say I am surprised – that's what happens when you try to piecemeal implement something that really has to be done as a coherent, designed, interacting working mechanism.

Today's pièce de résistance, in the ongoing soap opera that is States reform of itself, was to implement collective responsibility within the Council of Ministers. No longer will Ministers be free to speak or vote against the policy of the politburo. That guarantees 11 votes in the bag for the CM's party, barring absences. In theory when you have collective responsibility if there is a failure of Government you don't just sacrifice a minister, the whole government goes. That might work in a place where there is a party system with an alternative shadow Government in place ready to take up the gauntlet, but in our system?

There were some bits I missed, but from what I could tell they were arguing about who appoints the Ministers. If I have it right the plan is that the CM proposes a team and the assembly votes for it en bloc. Currently each post is voted individually. If the CM's proposed team is rejected three times, he gets to choose whomever he pleases anyway.

They haven't finished chewing over the changes yet, but I don't know it much matters what they do with the rest. As of the next election, the only time an individual States members who does not end up a Minister gets any meaningful say over anything is when they sit as an electoral college to elect the Chief Minister. After that it is out of their hands, just like WEB, SOJDC, Andium Homes and all the other arm's length, commercially confidential bodies that handle so much of the people's assets and interests.

I did hear a number of people lamenting the demise of the old committee system that preceded the current ministerial approach. I guess if they can make it work in New York, we could have made it work here (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Council). But of course a committee system is very much a council sort of thing, not what you expect of a national government. I suspect so much of what is happening here is that egotistical puffery of bigging up their role and the importance of the Island and the pursuit by some of a notion of independence.

For my part I think the whole approach is the wrong way round.  The way to resilient political process and participation lies in devolving decision making to the people.   This further centralisiation of power and abstraction of control flies in the face of that.  In the extreme imagine we could now have a deputy returned unopposed in St Mary who is elected CM  then selects the Ministers and has an 11 vote head start in any debate.  Even if there were a contested election there, less than 5% of the electorate would arguably have decided the whole Government.  All in your name and quite democratic!

Not so Joined Together?

Does anyone know how well the roll out of fibre (Gigabit Jersey) is going? The declared plan was to get all 42,000 domestic properties, plus businesses connected by 2016 (apparently regardless of whether they wanted to be connected!). We taxpaying public put £19million into the project, so I sincerely hope someone in the States is on top of the project plan, progress,and value for our money. My experience and intuition indicates things are perhaps not going too well.

On the recent Bank Holiday Monday we had 3 men from a contract company at our house for 2 hours. It cannot be cheap to pay contractors to work public holidays, so I'm guessing JT wouldn't unless they had to. Another small indication that things are not quite running smoothly is that they went to the wrong address initially (there is another road in the parish with the same name in common usage). Astoundingly given they were working in behalf of the 'phone company is they didn't have our line number (you know the one they were coming to work on) so they could call to locate us! Goodness knows how much more time was lost while they located the right address.

They explained they were trying to locate where the phone lines enter the house, and to do that they proposed pushing the rod from the road end and locating the point from the sound of it hitting the wall. I pointed out there wouldn't likely be much noise if the ingress was, as suspected, below the decking on the wood cladding. Besides I couldn't see the benefit as the first team who had visited had run the rod (a yellow cable like set up on a drum) from inside the house for the 40 metres I told them it would be from the DP to the road. I showed them the DP and conduit. So then they went on the locate the junction box the plan shows is somewhere in the garden garden. I told then we had had had a team up last week to do that too and they had located it in the corner of the garden. (Fortunately Helen had been here to relay that info on that occasion). After some digging about toing and froing they found the junction box and scraped a little soil from the top of it. They then informed us they would have to get a different team out to raise the box and negotiate with us to move some fencing. Net result they had replicated the work of the three previous teams and progressed the whole by the magnificent achievement of removing a couple of inches of soil from a small part of the junction box. It was quite clear they had no idea or paperwork about the previous visits or what they had done.

There's more! The Friday before they turned up we had a letter from JT asking us to confirm their given date for final installation, and saying they expected us to have completed all necessary work for their people to do the install. Bit tricky that as the JT people themselves have not yet worked out what needs doing and are going to have to send at last one more team to us to advise/agree work to be done.

I would like to say at this point that a couple of the individual technicians who tuned up in the different teams were pretty on the ball. They understood it really wasn't a good idea to run cable up the outside of wood clad buildings, especially ones on a timber frame. Everything moves, and unless you use shaped copper fixings you are likely to split the wood, and any hole lets water in and rot begin, oh and the cladding has to be replaced every 20 years or so. Definitely not the place for laser cable.

I have since discovered a couple of other things. First we are certainly not alone in having multiple teams coming each not aware of the other's work on the property. I am also told that the contractors are paid per installation, with JT picking up the problems. The contractors have a quick in quick out mindset and are looking to do the simplest, least work option possible, which of course may not be the sensible or appropriate long term option. That is quite consistent with our experience. Something I have not yet identified is whether the contractors are local companies using local people, local companies using temp off island staff, or even UK companies. I did note two of the teams who turned up here were driving local hired vehicles.

The most recent info I could find on progress was from October last year, saying they had connected 5,000 properties and were on track.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/10/jt-connect-5000-jersey-customers-fibre-optic-broadband-network.html

A previous news item in 2012 says they had connected the first 1000 customers. http://www.jtglobal.com/Jersey/super-footer/Latest-News/2012/ISLANDERS-AMONGST-FIRST-TO-SIGN-UP-FOR-THE-WORLDS-FASTEST-RESIDENTIAL-BROADBAND-/

Lets be generous and allow that was December, that means in 10 months they had connected 4000 customers. At 400 per month, it will take over 92 months to connect the remaining 37,000 residential customers. There may be some room to play depending on whether they have for example connected more businesses first. Let's say I have a few doubts about the Gigabit project being completed by 2016.

http://www.gigabitjersey.com/

https://www.gov.je/GOVERNMENT/PLANNINGPERFORMANCE/Pages/MinisterialDecisions.aspx?showreport=yes&docid=86107aec026dbbf44a1062f8ac345f9e_MDs

A coincidence or three

I've been doing some reading around our proposed new hospital. It is not my usual arena, but recent events have highlighted some aspects that should be input into the planning of the facility, which we can easily image should last the Island a generation or more. Intuitively one would expect population and demographic models to be central. The reticence of the Minister in laying out the details of the models used is troubling. But it is not the only area of concern.

The recently published IPPC report is quite clear there are expected health, including mental health impacts on small island states. The summary can be found at http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf . Unlike previous reports, this one explicitly identifies current impacts are occurring "Local changes in temperature and rainfall have altered the distribution of some water-borne illnesses and disease vectors”. A few other pertinent quotes are :

“The key risks that follow, all of which are identified with high confidence, span sectors and regions. Each of these key risks contributes to one or more RFCs.33

i. Risk of death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small

island developing states and other small islands, due to storm surges, coastal flooding, and

sea-level rise”

“Impacts from recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones, and wildfires, reveal significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability (very high confidence). Impacts of such climate-related extremes include alteration of ecosystems, disruption of food production and water supply, damage to infrastructure and settlements, morbidity and mortality, and consequences for mental health and human well-being. For countries at all levels of development, these impacts are consistent with a significant lack of preparedness for current climate variability in some sectors.”

I have written to the health minister to ask what extent these changes, both present and future have been considered in the planning of the hospital.

However I came across something else while looking for information. The hospital managing director is of course a pivotal person on the future of the hospital. So I did a search. A brief cv for Mrs. Helen O'Shea is on the States web site at http://www.gov.je/News/2012/Pages/NewHospitalManagingDirector.aspx . I used to do a lot of technical recruitment interviewing when I was running a rapidly growing software business. I've seen a lot of cv's. Two things about that online piece stood out to me immediately. While all the other positions held had accompanying dates, the time at Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust does not. The other is the repeated occurrence of acting or interim office for what look like exceptionally long periods. This naturally raises the question of why she did not become the actual chief? It might be as straight forward as a glass ceiling effect.

Perhaps that temporal absence is simply a stylistic choice by a content manager. However we can infer that Mrs O'Shea was there between 2004 and 2011, rather longer than the other establishments. A very long time to be an acting chief, so I assume some other roles and positions were omitted. Her public profile on LinkedIn is even less informative, listing only the current position. More useful is zoominfo http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Helen-O%27Shea/815893917 Here we can identify that in 2006 Mrs O'Shea was director of performance (not an executive director however).

A bit more digging and this came up http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/hospital-names-boss-1-934551 from the 30^th October 2008. Mrs O'Shea it seems did not put herself forward to be Chief Executive, despite having been acting chief for six months according to that article. (So that clarifies one of the points above). Perhaps it is not too surprising that she didn't pursue the opportunity when you read this : http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/hospital-halts-bid-for-elite-status-1-929196 I'd say that was the right decision to make for the acting Chief, but you have to wonder what responsibility the former director of performance and director of operations had for being in such a position of failing to meet standards and the public's expectations.

That wasn't the only problem the Trust had that year. In April it was all over the national press after a bogus nurse was in court. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1017370/Woman-walks-street-land-job-NHS-nurse-years--treating-hundreds-qualifications.html and http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/robust-checks-made-on-nurses-1-925910 Whether the recruitment, appraisal and performance checks up to that point came under Mrs O'Shea's directorial responsibility I cannot say, but it cannot have sat comfortably given her immediate prior title.

Did the HR department and interviewing staff go to the bottom of those irritating and stand out cv points? Is it coincidence that in 2012 Jersey appointed a new hospital managing director who had experience of public glare due to a rogue or bogus nurse and a hospital failing to meet targets? Is it possible that the hospital, knowing they had problems with a rogue nurse, as exposed by Stuart Syvret, thought they had found someone who could protect them and 'tidy up' from the fall out? I have no idea. There is nothing of any substantive fact to show Mrs O'Shea to be anything other than a professional in her field. And yet there are those annoying coincidences and little questions that nag away at one's confidence.