Moz Scott, a former lawyer, said her concerns about how Dr Melissa McCullough investigated and reported complaints contributed to her decision to quit politics earlier this year.
Dr McCullough was formerly Guernsey’s standards commissioner, but resigned after the States failed to back her findings following an investigation into Deputy Gavin St Pier.
She remains commissioner in Alderney, where there has recently been an avalanche of code of conduct complaints.
In a letter copied to Jersey’s Privileges & Procedures Committee, Ms Scott claimed the complaints system could turn States members into ‘sitting ducks’.
She also expressed concern that Dr McCullough may not represent value for money and that her approach put members’ reputations at risk and failed to give them a fair opportunity to respond. She compared the commissioner's lack of legal background with the legal qualifications of the UK's equivalent commissioner. She has also reported a possible breach by the commissioner of Jersey's data protection laws.
‘Confidence in the system depends not only on whether breaches of the code are identified, but also on whether those States members who are subject to investigation can have confidence that allegations will be clearly formulated, evidence objectively assessed, relevant context considered, and conclusions and recommendations reached consistently and proportionately,’ she said.
Dr McCullough rejected the allegations.
‘I categorically reject the allegations and characterisations contained in Ms Scott’s letter. I am not the subject of any complaint or investigation, and there is no basis for me to step aside from my responsibilities as commissioner for standards,' she said.
Although the commissioner's alleged failings contributed to her decision not to seek re-election, Ms Scott said her criticism was not driven by personal grievance.
‘It is because my decision illustrates the wider consequences that a lack of confidence in the quality of the disciplinary process for States members can have for elected representatives and for their electorate,’ she said.
‘I remain concerned by the significant burden an inadequately particularised or insufficiently evidenced complaint can impose on a States member.’
Ms Scott argued that a decision reached without giving the subject of a complaint a fair chance to respond, or reached on an irrational or disproportionate basis, may be open to judicial review.
She said she was aware of ‘similar concerns’ from parliamentarians in other jurisdictions where Dr McCullough was commissioner.
‘I do not believe that remaining silent about my concerns serves either States members or the public interest,' she said.
‘I am certain I am not alone in my belief that public officials, particularly those involved in disciplinary processes concerning States members, should demonstrate leadership in complying with the law and applying principles of natural justice. I suggest that [Dr McCullough] considers stepping aside as commissioner for standards while the PPC investigates the matter.’
Dr McCullough said she wanted to avoid a public argument. 'As a matter of long-standing practice, I do not engage in public exchanges concerning complaints or investigations undertaken in my capacity as commissioner. I do not intend to depart from that practice on this occasion,' she said.
You need to be logged in to comment.