Island’s reputation will be tarnished if deputy does not go
I AM writing in response to your editorial on 30 March 2021 entitled Expelling deputy from States is step too far. The justification for your claim is predicated on the basis that Deputy Le Tissier should not be expelled as his deception was not criminal. You ignore the fact that he is not being tried under criminal law but against the standards enshrined in the Code of Conduct for Members, a code which he swore an oath to uphold on taking office, but which he evidentially, as well as by his own admission, proceeded to drive a coach and horses through. Having read the report of the Code of Conduct complaint by the investigating panel it is clear the prima facie facts of the case are that Deputy Le Tissier broke all of the following codes: Section 3 on Duty of Public Trust, Section 6 on Integrity, Section 7 on Public Interest, Section 8 on Conduct, Section 9 on Courtesy to Others, Section 11 on Acting Diligently. Should the States choose not to ratify the recommendations of the panel to expel Deputy Le Tissier, whether out of partisan loyalty, or by citing the need for a by-election as a convenient (strawman?) excuse, or by trying to discredit the panel, it will in my opinion represent a significant failure of good governance. It is clear that the conduct panel has taken its responsibility to uphold parliamentary standards seriously, and it is important that deputies, whether friends or colleagues should not undermine it. It is worth reflecting that if Deputy Le Tissier continues in his post, it is hard to see which committee presidents would wish to have him as a member, as he has so clearly been adversely tainted by his thoughtless and discourteous actions. Deputy Le Tissier lied about being a member of the public who was working from home when he was actually sitting in a States meeting, and furthermore he lied when he was first challenged about his ‘Pirate’ Twitter account. Only when he was forced to admit his actions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary did he admit his wrongdoings, knowing that he had no way to refute them.
Subsequently, he issued a statement that stretched the truth to breaking point claiming that the many months of posting unpleasant, untrue and xenophobic tweets a were a mere ‘lapse’. In my position as a corporate director on publicly listed entities, had I admitted to performing similar actions as Deputy Le Tissier has done, I would quite rightly be forced to resign on the spot. For someone who has sworn an oath to support parliamentary standards, who has been entrusted by the voting public to represent their, and the islands’ interests, the responsibility is probably greater still. It appears that there are two acceptable options that will uphold the honour and integrity of the States: Deputy Le Tissier resigns promptly of his own volition, thereby obviating the need for further painful exposure to States scrutiny, or the States recognises Deputy Le Tissier’s serious transgressions of the code, and expels him against his will, further condemning him to the ignominy of his position.
Any other outcome will likely impugn and tarnish the reputation of the States, which will be damaging for the islands’ reputation and respect.
RUPERT DOREY
Le Camptrehard
Rue des Rocquettes
St Andrew’s
GY6 8SH