Email farce shows fear of real scrutiny

The tone was hostile and it was abrupt to the point of rudeness. She had let the committee down by her support for the wrong interview candidate and he suspected there would be dire consequences.

Typically for Deputy Fallaize, the email was sent outside normal working hours. Perhaps he came quickly to regret its contents. We may never know the full story.

Almost a year later the consequences of that four-paragraph email rumble on, to the detriment not only of Deputy Fallaize, but the States of Deliberation as a whole.

It is an embarrassment that the States has failed to resolve this matter. Not for the first time it has dragged its heels, shown no leadership and manifestly failed to deal with a serious matter in a timely fashion. Its internal disciplinary processes are so weak that they break down under the slightest pressure.

The result is that there will probably be no resolution of this matter before June’s election. If he stands, Deputy Fallaize goes into that election not only bearing the brunt of public anger over the two-college system but with the cloud of allegations that he subverted a senior job appointment hanging over him.

All that is left then is to play the blame game.

Deputy Fallaize says he and his Education colleagues have nothing to hide, they want to hand over all the relevant information. Policy and Resources says likewise.

And yet Scrutiny cannot guarantee that it can get to the truth and publish it.

Someone is playing the system.

As usual, the casualty is public trust. The States pays lip service to those basics of good governance – transparency, openness, honesty – but it only works when it suits.

The lack of power invested in Scrutiny to do its job and investigate is indicative of a system that fears genuine independence and authority.

As a result, time and again at all levels of the public sector and politics there is zero accountability for actions taken.