Thursday, 30 April 2009

A Conflict of Appointments?

You may or may not have noticed this in the Jersey Evening Post:

A vacancy has arisen for a member of the Jersey Appointments Commission. Suitable remuneration, together with reimbursement of out of pocket expenses, will be provided.(1)

It is tricky to track down any remuneration details, but a comparison with the Employment Tribunal Members (from 24th October 2006) has a daily sitting rate as follows:

Chairman - to match the Commissioner's rate - £736 (2)

What happened this year (30 April 2009)? We see from the Chief Minister's Office that:

The Chief Minister approved the report and proposition recommending that Mr Julian Rogers be appointed as a member of the Appointments Commission for a term of 4 years.(3)

This went through the States "on the nod":

Proposition: Appointments Commission: appointment of member. (4)
POUR: 39    CONTRE: 0    ILL: 1    NOT PRESENT: 13

So the States have decided to appoint the admirable Mr Rogers, and ensure that he gets suitable remuneration for his services for the next four years.

And yet - the States Remuneration Panel, which decides on States Members pay - and which is to meet later this year, has:

Mr. Julian Rogers (Chairman);  (5)

So for services rendered - and suitable remuneration - the States have appointed Mr Rogers who is also to advice on suitable States remuneration!

While there is not an exact conflict of interests, it would certainly have seemed better had Mr Rogers been kept at "arms length" with regard to this appointment, and hence any new remuneration coming his way. I am sure he will deliver an independent review of States members' pay, and not be swayed in any way, but it might have been prudent to ensure that there could be no grounds for his results being in any way prejudiced - by himself benefiting from the largesse of the States in this way.


1 comment:

mike freeman said...

This is so pathetic-the states are rolling out a zippy computerised game type training programme which has a section on corporate governance-circumstance like the one you mention would definitely be classed as not acceptable.To me the main question not asked in the training game is -"if you don't know most of this already how come you're a senior manager?"