Select a region
The Bailiff's Secretary has issued advice over the Code of Conduct States members must adhere to, over fears it is being misunderstood by the public.
The advice itself has come from the States Members' Conduct Panel, which oversees the handling of any complaints and decides any suitable sanctions if a complaint is found to be of merit.
The directive comes hot on the heels of two separate complaints against Deputy Neil Inder. One was split into two and only one of those was found to be of merit and he was cautioned, the other two parts of the complaints were both dismissed.
A complaint against Deputy Sarah Hansmann Rouxel was recently upheld and she was also cautioned.
Pictured: Part of the Code of Conduct which States Members must adhere to.
With such complaints being widely publicised in the media and discussed on social media, the States Members Conduct Panel said there "appear to have been some misunderstandings about the States Members’ Code of Conduct and the investigation process. In order that the investigation process is clear, the Panel wishes to provide an overview of the current complaints process."
While the ‘Code of Conduct for Members of the States of Deliberation’ is a public document, which can be viewed at gov.gg, the Panel which oversees it wishes to make its role clear:
"A complaint alleging that the behaviour and/or actions of a States’ Member are in breach of the Code of Conduct is considered by the States Members’ Conduct Panel. The Panel consists of 10 members who are appointed by the Bailiff. When a complaint is made the Chairman of the Panel decides if there is evidence to support the complaint. If there is not, the complaint is dismissed immediately.
"If there is evidence to support the complaint the Member concerned will be asked to respond to the complaint and an Investigation Panel of three members of the StatesMembers’ Conduct Panel will be set up. This Panel comprises the Chairman, one member chosen by the Deputy against whom the complaint has been made, and one member chosen by the Chairman.
"The Investigation Panel convenes a meeting and both the person who made the complaint and the Deputy who is the subject of the complaint are invited to address the Panel."
The Panel is non-political and independent body which 'decides purely on the facts in front of it' with the results of their investigations made public.
If the matter is investigated then dismissed, a report is published. If a complaint is found to be of merit, a number of sanctions are available including a caution, which is the most common given, when the breach is of a minor nature.
If the Panel finds that the breach was more serious then it can recommend that the Member be formally reprimanded, suspended from the States, removed from a particular office or expelled from the States.
In recent years the most serious breach was dealt with by a formal reprimand in the States. Former Deputy Mike Hadley was reprimanded by the Bailiff during the 2012-2016 States.
If the Panel believes that a sanction stronger than a caution is merited then its findings are passed to the States’ Assembly & Constitution Committee which passes it on to the States, with the Panel’s recommendations. SACC cannot review or alter the decision of the Panel and the States collectively make the decision on which sanction should be imposed.
The Panel wants the following to be noted, to ensure its key areas of focus are known by the public.
The Panel is always 'open' with any of its findings always published, once a complaint has been dealt with, unless the matter has been brought to the public attention by the media otherwise.
The Panel always deals with all complaints as quickly as possible, usually meeting for the first time within days of a complaint being made. The results of the investigation are also issued as soon as possible.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.