Deputy is a spent force politically

Following two objective examinations, separate panels have held that his conduct was seriously bad and warrants sanction. Permanent expulsion, said the first. Only for a year, says the second.

Read the latest report and the difference between the two penalties appears mainly procedural – a product of a complaints process that is still making it up as it goes along, is setting guidelines for penalties on the hoof, and taking account of earlier irregularities.

This is not a criticism of the States Members’ Conduct Panel or the individuals responding to unprecedented conduct issues. More, it is a reflection on the consequences of establishing a behavioural disciplinary process that is quasi-judicial in nature and process and now seems ill-equipped to deal with today’s issues.

That said, the panel’s judgement on Deputy Le Tissier was unequivocal – ‘We did not gain the impression from our meeting or any other material which we saw that Deputy Le Tissier had really reflected on the impact of what he had done, the offence his comments had inevitably caused, and how they would undermine public trust in his role as a deputy.’

If you accept these findings – and subjecting them to a States vote and politicising how members behave is questionable enough – then the conclusion is clear. Deputy Le Tissier’s fitness to remain in the States is seriously compromised.

In that case, expulsion vs suspension without pay is somewhat academic. If the softening was, as some claim, designed to prevent a costly by-election, cutting off remuneration for a year is almost a worse penalty. Why hang around to return as a pariah 12 months later? Anyone reliant on the income is almost bound to resign and trigger a by-election anyway.

Ultimately, however, this is somewhat irrelevant. Deputy Le Tissier is a spent political force and finished in the States. That he hasn’t resigned merely reinforces the panel’s view of his judgement.