It follows a report from the Jersey Appointments Commission, which found that the government had used a ‘back door route’ when it came to some recruitment – and was critical of moves that led to a lack of control over interim appointments.
Constable Karen Shenton-Stone, who chairs the One Gov Review Panel undertaking the inquiry, said: ‘We as a panel would like to thank Jersey Appointments Commission for their work, and express our disappointment with the government’s failure to follow established protocols for all recruitment and to use good recruitment statistics.
‘We will be investigating these issues and look forward to working with all relevant parties.’
The JAC found evidence of the government flouting good practice and circumventing the appointments process last year.
The JAC, set up in 2005, oversaw 22 appointments in the civil service last year as well as 19 key appointments in the independent sector.
In its report it said it was concerned that corners were being cut when it came to recruitment.
The report stated: ‘Our guidelines are clear and, we hope, easy to follow. They outline good practice in recruitment and all departments and State-funded bodies are expected to comply.
‘However, there is some evidence that the appointments process is being circumvented, using a procurement process.
‘This may well have contributed to the lack of overall control on the number of interim contracts recorded centrally as some departments have chosen an “expediency” back door route rather than a more robust process.
‘There is also some evidence of the movement of interim post holders being transferred to new and different interim roles without due process.
‘While we can understand the desire to move at pace, we are concerned that in some cases corners are being cut.’
Elsewhere the report states that the JAC has been approached by staff informally as they feel they are not able to use whistle-blowing procedures within government.
And the JAC has also recommended interview training for all staff who sit on panels, after finding occasions where commissioners have had to intervene to prevent the use of inappropriate comment or questions for some applicants.
