"We are all conflicted!"

Wednesday 26 February 2020

Two members of the Development & Planning Authority will recuse themselves from the Open Planning Meeting on Education's two-school building plans so they can vote against the proposals this week.

Deputies Barry Paint and Lester Queripel said they, and their colleagues on the DPA, are all biased having declared their preferences by voting on Education's two school plans during previous States debates.

For this reason, both Deputies said they are clearly conflicted and could not in good faith sit on the planning panel, which is supposed to be objective and base its decisions on planning policies. 

The issue strikes right to the heart of the issues that the DPA faces, as a quasi-judicial body run by politicians. Its former President John Gollop resigned from the role last year saying his views as a politician representing the public often conflicted with planning policies and that something had to give. 

Further issues have now been highlighted by Deputies Queripel and Paint, who feel a light needs to be shone on the situation. 

"I am a signatory on the [pause and review] requete," said Deputy Queripel. "Therefore I will indeed be speaking in favour and voting in favour of the requete.

"I have recused myself from sitting on the panel at the OPM.

Pictured: Deputy Queripel has put in a Rule 14 question to DPA President Dawn Tindall seeking a formal response to whether members are conflicted from taking part in this week's debate. The answer is yet to be received or published, although the 14-day deadline has not yet elapsed. 

"My prediction is that Dawn [Tindall], Victoria [Oliver] and Alex ]Snowdon] will say that they’re not conflicted. If they do say that, then I will challenge that view on the grounds that they have all voted in favour of extending the schools during previous States debates: therefore how can they not be conflicted?

"My approach to issues such as this is ‘when in doubt then leave it out’".

That approach, he said, is captured in the DPA's Legal Briefing on Planning and Open Plan Meetings presentation notes, which states: "Very important to step out of decision making process if there is any potential for bias or perception of bias."

"Bearing that in mind, how can they say they’re not biased?" Deputy Queripel asked. 

"I want to emphasise I have the utmost respect for Dawn, Victoria and Alex, but in my view, the three of them shouldn’t be allowed to sit on the OPM panel due to the fact they’ve already voted in favour of the two schools being extended.

"To avoid any possible ‘perception of bias’, surely the best thing for them to do would be to recuse themselves and that would then mean that an independent, completely impartial panel would be put in place."

Pictured: Deputy Gollop stepped down as DPA President last year because of issues with the quasi-judicial role. 

Deputy Paint expressed a similar view, saying that under normal DPA procedures all members would be required to sit out of any subsequent planning meeting. 

"First of all I informed the DPA perhaps a month ago that I would be voting for the Requete  because I have always voted against the one school on two sites. Under normal DPA procedures any member would be considered conflicted in taking a position on any planning decision if you have shown bias of any sort towards a particular item on the agenda coming before the committee.

"I have done just that by voting against these proposals. I have also spoken publicly against the proposals, so how can I not be considered as being biased?

"The question is for those who still sit on the DPA committee and voted for the proposal - how can they say that they are not conflicted?"

The issues raised by the two Deputies also extend to this week's debate on a requete calling for a halt to any planned work to remove a section of the L'Ancresse wall. 

If the States reject the requete, the DPA will preside over the planning application that Environment & Infrastructure Committee carries out to conduct the work. 

Pictured: The future of the L'Ancresse wall remains uncertain with another debate to take place this week. 

"I am recusing myself from the debate on the requete re the L'Ancresse wall on the grounds stated in Bullet Point 3 (the potential for bias or perception of bias), in order that I am then free to sit on the panel at the future Open Planning Meeting on the issue," Deputy Queripel added.

"If Dawn, Victoria and Alex say in response to my Rule 14 question that they’re not biased and that they intend sitting on the panel at the Open Planning Meeting to decide on whether or not the extensions to the two schools can go ahead, then they go and recuse themselves from the debate on the L'Ancresse wall in order to free themselves up for the Open Planing Meeting (as I have done) due to their having concerns of ‘potential for bias or perception of bias’, won’t they then be contradicting all they have said re their not being biased for the two-schools Open Planning Meeting?

"Oh what a tangled web that would weave and it would be all of their own making."

Pictured top: Deputies Barry Paint and Lester Queripel.