Exclusion rules on committee talks ‘are too vague’
AN EDUCATION committee member who was barred from involvement in funding negotiations after enrolling her son at one of the colleges says the rules are too vague.
Deputies Andrea Dudley-Owen and Carl Meerveld were excluded from discussions with the grant-aided college on the grounds that they ‘have or will have children attending the colleges as fee-payers’.
In their absence, the remaining three members – Paul Le Pelley, Neil Inder and David De Lisle – unanimously called for a phased £3.5m. reduction in funding.
Unlike Deputy Meerveld, who was barred even before negotiations began, Deputy Dudley-Owen said she had been in the room for the first few meetings.
‘I began negotiations then was excluded after enrolling my son to Elizabeth College, which was interpreted as a special interest [under rule 49 of the States rules of procedure],’ she said.
‘I abided by and adhered to advice from the procureur and the chief secretary of Education. However, was I happy? No I wasn’t. I think the rule is too vague and so generalised that it can be interpreted to fit any interest you could have in a community as small as Guernsey.’
