Scrutiny investigation needs to dig deep

The latter has never replied.

Our email reads as follows:

‘We have read with some concern the allegations surrounding the process of the selection and appointment of Clare Sealy to the post of head of curriculum and standards. These are extremely serious allegations and we write to you as our Castel deputies serving on the Education committee, and who are involved as recipients of Deputy Fallaize’s published email (addressed to Colette Falla on 17 April 2019 at 18.28 hours). We would appreciate learning whether or not you agreed with the content of this email, and whether you condone its tone, and the perceived threats it carries.’

The response from Deputy Graham was as follows:

‘The allegations have been made maliciously on the basis of falsehoods, half-truths and innuendo. They have been made by a States deputy hell bent on revenge for having been deposed by the current ESC committee, with the connivance of a senior civil servant whose conduct has been wholly unprofessional to say the least. The ESC committee has conducted itself honourably and correctly throughout this matter, and the leaked email was absolutely justified in the context in which it was written...

The arrival of Mrs Baker as the new director of education and Mrs Sealy as the head of curriculum and standards are our best hope of achieving a successful transformation, which is why a bitter and tiny minority are doing their best to frustrate them and make things difficult for them.

I only hope that in time the true picture will emerge, but I fear that we are in a situation akin to the proverbial ‘when will you stop beating your wife’ question.

In the meantime, the committee is focussed on what is best for our students, their parents and our teachers rather than grandstanding in anticipation of next year’s general election. Our senior teachers are alarmed to hear that the deputy to whom I referred is bringing an amendment to bring back the 11-plus and another educational model which was defeated in the States last year by 27 votes to 11. The last thing that our students and teachers deserve is the introduction of new uncertainty.

In short, the ESC has nothing to apologise for and deserves the support of the community in the immensely hard work currently before us.’

We were somewhat shocked at this attack on a fellow deputy and later that day we replied:

‘Thank you for your response. Our concerns centre around:

1. The filling of a senior education post, having ignored due process, a 4-to-1 majority decision favouring a candidate with local qualifications, and the subsequent overturning of that decision by persons who were not present (excepting Fallaize) at the interviews, he being the minority of one.

2. An email from the president of ESC directed at a senior civil servant, containing threatening and perceived bullying content.

These are not falsehoods, innuendo and half-truths, they are factually correct assertions, and you have not disputed their accuracy.

Is it correct that Mrs Sealy was unsuccessful at interview for the post of director of education, but invited back to attend an interview for the post to which she has now been appointed? Was that invitation at the direction of any member of the ESC committee, and did she have any expectations of success influenced by that invitation?

It is unfortunate that your reply concentrates on attacking an unnamed but identifiable deputy colleague, and a senior civil servant whose conduct you claim has been wholly unprofessional.

If what you claim is supported by evidence, what code of conduct rules have been broken by any deputy and reported, and what disciplinary procedures have been instigated against the civil servant? Why did a HR official feel it necessary to resign over the matter?

Our concerns in this matter have nothing to do with the ideology surrounding the education debate, but everything to do with an abuse of process.’

Deputy Graham’s reply stated:

‘The only abuse of due process was conducted by a civil servant who convened a selection panel containing two members who were personally conflicted. The composition of the panel was effectively rigged against the prospects of at least two of the applicants. I hope this Machiavellian conduct may one day be exposed, but whilst I am a deputy, I have to mind my words. When I have retired, it will be the right time to deal with that.

I cannot get involved in answering some of your ill-informed allegations because I am under legal advice not to. To be frank, I have more urgent matters to deal with than to get drawn into such endless debate. I am content for you to believe what you wish to believe.

I am content that I know where the truth lies, and my conscience is clear...’

The email exchange was sent to the States of Deliberation Code of Conduct Panel, which upheld a complaint by us that Deputy Graham had breached part nine of the code.

The deputy to whom Deputy Graham refers was contacted by us after the Code of Conduct Panel verdict was sent to us on 30 August 2019. That individual was shocked and hurt at the content of Deputy Graham’s reply to us and has publicly stated that a number of personally inaccurate statements were contained in the emails sent by him. Parts of the offending emails have been omitted from this letter to avoid repeating the personal claims that that deputy finds particularly objectionable.

In the light of the allegations made by Deputy Graham, the emails were immediately sent to the president of the Scrutiny Management Committee, and it was hoped that they would be investigated by a tribunal inquiry. The States Assembly has voted against that option, but doubtless the recently announced independent inquiry will investigate these allegations.

It will need to dig deep.

B. D. AND P. J. MURPHY

Address supplied.

Editor’s footnote: Below is a message sent by Deputy Graham to other States members following a statement by Deputy Andrea Dudley-Owen on Wednesday 4 September.

Colleagues,

Since Deputy Dudley-Owen made a personal statement in the Assembly yesterday morning, a number of you have approached me to ask “What was that all about then?” I feel the need to explain.

On Sunday 28 July I received an email from two Castel residents in which I was asked two yes-or-no questions about an issue that had become highly controversial. In the course of two emails I responded with my yes-or-no answers and supported them with relevant explanations for them. In what I assumed to be a private, in-confidence exchange of views via email I made critical reference to an unnamed but inadvertently-identifiable States Deputy.

The Castel residents then chose to complain to the Members’ Code of Conduct Investigation Panel, alleging that I had breached sections 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10 of the Code.

I received a fair and highly-professional hearing before the Panel. The Panel reported its finding as follows:

‘In our judgement Deputy Graham’s communications were not in breach of section 3, section 5, section 8 and section 10 of the States’ Members’ Code of Conduct. However, we find that in one sentence in one of the two emails to the complainants Deputy Graham expressed himself and his opinions using immoderate language which he acknowledged in the hearing before the Code of Conduct Investigation Panel.

In that regard, we find that Deputy Graham fell below the high standards required of States Members by the Code.’

The Panel added that ‘it was a minor breach of the Code of Conduct and it can therefore be disposed of by cautioning Deputy Graham’.

At no point did the Panel report that it found my comments to be inaccurate; rather it was the tone and the language I used to make them which were found to have breached the Code. I remember a key question put to me during the hearing: ‘Would it have been possible to make truthful comment by using more moderate language?’ My reply was of course in the affirmative.

I duly accepted the caution unreservedly.

I have been scrupulous in avoiding any action which would reveal to anybody- other than to the Code of Conduct Investigation Panel the identity of the two complainants or of the deputy to whom I made reference. In contrast, the complainants chose to share the email exchange and their complaints against me with the members of the Scrutiny Management Committee and with Deputy Dudley-Owen. Furthermore, during this Wednesday’s debate on the Scrutiny Management Committee’s proposal to establish a tribunal of inquiry, the complainants chose to send to all States Members a selected extract from one of my emails to the complainants.

There are some lessons to be learned from my experience of engaging as a deputy with members of the public. In more than three years of extensive, face-to-face engagement with Castel constituents, much of it on their doorsteps or in their gardens or in their kitchens and sitting rooms, I have always felt myself able to engage in frank and where necessary robust exchanges without fear of causing offence. Indeed, most Castel constituents would not settle for less. Until my recent experience with the complainants, I had never encountered any difficulties, far less any complaints.

Clearly, I allowed myself to be complacent about what is acceptable and unacceptable within the Members’ Code of Conduct, and there may be a lesson in this episode for other deputies as well as a very clear one for me.

A second lesson is that there is no such thing as a private, in-confidence exchange of emails with members of the public. It was undeniably naive of me to act as if there were such a convention.

A deputy has no right to expect confidentiality to be observed whereas members of the public have an absolute right to expect that their emails to deputies may not be shared with third parties other than when express permission is given to do so. In my case and without my permission, what I thought to be a private exchange of emails has ended up being widely shared and its nature placed into the public domain through being aired in the Assembly and reported in the media this week.

A third lesson is to put such episodes behind one in the best interests of the collective workings of the States. With that in mind Deputy Dudley-Owen and I have shaken hands on an understanding to do just that.

Richard Graham

People’s Deputy for Castel