Code panel gets its timing all wrong

If a complaint could be made against the panel it would surely be found in violation of its own standards.

How can it be that the result of a complaint lodged in August last year takes six months to be completed?

Worse, when the complaint is against the members of Education, Sport & Culture, it is released two days before the most important States meeting of the committee’s tenure.

The Conduct Panel says that it was given legal advice that the matter should be suspended because criminal proceedings might be brought against someone over the application for an employment permit for the Head of Curriculum and Standards.

‘Once that matter concluded, the Investigation Panel took every possible step to bring matters to a speedy conclusion,’ it says.

The criminal investigation finished in November.

The panel did not convene until 13 weeks later.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the two-college debate, it is clear to all that Education has been under huge public pressure.

A quick resolution of this matter might have been appreciated.

As it is, the timing could not be worse. The panel might have dismissed most of Deputy Carl Meerveld’s complaint but just when Education needs the focus solely on the positive aspects of its plans it is pulled back to the mishandled employment of a senior officer.

And, like most of the panel’s investigations, the conclusion is far from satisfactory. One complaint is upheld, one partially and a tap-on-the-wrist caution is administered.

‘The matter is therefore now closed,’ says the panel.

Except it is not. Almost a year on from the ill-judged and discourteous email sent by Deputy Fallaize the matter lies in disarray. Scrutiny does not believe it can do it justice and the States has already rejected a full investigation by the Tribunal of Inquiry.

And so it drags on.