This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
STATES OF JERSEY
SUSPENSION OF STATES EMPLOYEES: COMPOSITION OF REVIEW PANEL
Lodged au Greffe on 3rd June 2009 by the Deputy of St. Martin
STATES GREFFE
2009 Price code: B P.98
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion
to refer to their Act dated 30th April 2009 in which they approved revised procedures relating to the suspension of States employees and States of Jersey police officers, and agreed, inter alia, that 28 days after a suspension, and every 28 days thereafter, the continuing need for the suspension would be reviewed by a Panel drawn from within the public service which would be independent of the department where the suspended person was employed, and –
to request the States Employment Board to rescind its decision to appoint the members of the Corporate Management Board as the pool from which the Review Panels will be selected and to appoint instead a pool of 9 States employees drawn from across the public service who are not members of the Corporate Management Board to fulfil this role.
DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN
REPORT
On 30th April 2009 the States approved my proposition P.46/2009: "Suspension of States employees and States of Jersey Police Officers: revised procedures". The purpose of the proposition was to provide for a formal suspension process and the appointment of a pool of States employees to form an independent Panel to review the continuation of the suspension of States employees.
The Chief Minister had lodged an amendment seeking to replace the proposed Panel with the States Employment Board; however he withdrew it during the debate.
Whilst it is accepted that my proposition did not specify which States employees would be appointed, it was made clear in my report and during the debate that if approved, 9 States employees would be appointed from across the public service to form a pool from which a Panel of 3 would review the continuation of States employees whose suspensions had exceeded a 28 day period. It was also made known that the Panel would be recruited from a range of States employees.
During my meeting with the Chief Minister prior to the debate, we discussed the formation of the pool and Panel. He was well aware that it would be formed from across the public service. In fact it was the Chief Minister's suggestion, that as the Panel might have junior ranking employees, the Panel should report its findings and recommendations to the States Employment Board.
It was envisaged that the States Employment Board would circulate a request to all States Departments seeking 9 employees to form a pool. Whilst I believed the task could be undertaken within 42 days, the Chief Minister lodged an amendment to extend the period to 3 months. During the course of the debate I agreed not to oppose the amendment.
In paragraph 3 of the Chief Minister's Department's letter dated 21 May 2009 (see Appendix) reference is made to a panel of 3 public employees drawn from a pool of 9 public employees.
In paragraph 6 in the same letter, it states that the pool of Panel members will be members of the Corporate Management Board.
The Corporate Management Board consists of Chief Officers, therefore it is most questionable whether they are independent; however they are certainly not representative of the public service. The Review Panel's role is to hear submissions from Chief Officers seeking to justify the continuation of suspensions they have imposed. Therefore it could hardly be said that the Panel is independent if it is comprised solely of fellow Chief Officers.
I believe the Chief Minister's decision to appoint the Corporate Management Board to conduct Reviews goes against the spirit and intention of my proposition. The Board is neither independent nor representative of the public service.
I therefore urge Members to support my proposition so that the Corporate Management Board is replaced by a pool of 9 States employees drawn from across the public service.
There are no financial or manpower implications for the States.
APPENDIX