I'm still waiting for an exact breakdown by an FOI of the workings out of the retirement package paid to long serving States Members who just stood down, and has been in the States over 19 years. Here is as far as I can go by back analysis of the figures for Simon Crowcroft.
Using the current States Member annual remuneration
so one “month of salary” is .
From the Bailiwick Express/JEP lists:
| Person | Status | Payment (£) | Multiple of (approx.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simon Crowcroft | Retired | 36,694.06 | 7.35 |
| Geoff Southern | Retired | 30,311.58 | 6.07 |
| Deidre Mezbourian | Retired | 25,571.50 | 5.13 |
| Kevin Lewis | Unsuccessful | 25,571.50 | 5.13 |
| Steve Luce | Unsuccessful | 18,087.16 | 3.62 |
| Sam Mézec | Unsuccessful | 15,280.53 | 3.06 |
| Rob Ward | Unsuccessful | 9,979.12 | 2.00 |
| Mike Jackson | Unsuccessful | 9,979.12 | 2.00 |
| Steve Ahier | Unsuccessful | 9,979.12 | 2.00 |
| David Warr | Unsuccessful | 4,989.56 | 1.00 |
| Raluca Kovacs | Unsuccessful | 4,989.56 | 1.00 |
So every figure is a multiple of the same monthly salary .
2. The exact mathematical form for Crowcroft
For Crowcroft, the payment is:
Expressed in terms of the monthly salary:
So the exact calculation is:
The “7.35” is the scheme’s chosen multiplier for his band (long‑serving, retiring Constable with ≥19 years’ continuous service).
3. What band structure can we infer?
3.1. Clear, simple bands
From the one‑term and two‑term casualties:
One term (Warr, Kovacs):
Two terms (Ward, Jackson, Ahier):
These are perfectly integer multiples. That strongly suggests a base rule:
for ordinary Members with one or two consecutive terms.
3.2. Longer service and/or senior roles
For the others, the multiples are non‑integer:
Mezec (three consecutive terms, former minister):
Luce (about 15 years, former minister):
Lewis (long service, Deputy then Constable):
These look like:
i.e. a base “per term” component plus a top‑up for ministerial/Constable service or longer continuous service. The exact fractions (0.06, 0.62, 1.13 months) are too irregular to be simple integers, which points to a bespoke band table in the 2023 determination rather than a single neat formula.
3.3. Retirement bands (≥19 years)
For the three retirees (all ≥19 years’ continuous service):
Mezbourian:
Southern:
Crowcroft:
So there is clearly a separate retirement schedule for long‑serving Members, with higher multipliers than equivalent loss‑of‑office bands, and with Crowcroft at the top—reflecting both length of service and parish role.
In other words, the determination almost certainly contains something like:
Loss‑of‑office table: bands by number of terms and seniority.
Retirement table (≥19 years): higher bands, again differentiated by role/length.
But the public articles only show the outputs, not the internal band table.
4. Underlying principles (from the determination and reporting)
From the Remuneration Reviewer’s 2023 determination and the coverage:
Unit of calculation: All payments are expressed as a multiple of the current monthly salary:
Two distinct schemes:
Loss‑of‑office for unsuccessful candidates.
Retirement for long‑serving Members (≥19 years’ continuous service in 2026).
Service‑based and role‑based bands: More terms and more senior roles (minister, Constable) attract higher .
Special, one‑off 2026 arrangements: The 2026 band tables are bespoke; from 2030 the Reviewer moves to a simpler rule:
for unsuccessful candidates with at least two years’ continuous service.
5. How consistent is the reverse‑engineered picture?
Consistent: Every single payment is a clean multiple of the same , and short‑service Members follow a simple “per term” pattern (1 month for one term, 2 months for two terms).
Patterned but opaque: Longer‑service and retirement payments clearly follow higher bands, but the exact band thresholds and top‑up rules (e.g. how much extra for being a minister vs a Constable vs simply very long‑serving) are not published in the news reports or on the States site.
So the best we can do mathematically is:
State the exact formula for Crowcroft in terms of .
Show that all other payments fit the same structure.
Infer that the 2023 determination contains a band table assigning:
according to service length and role.