STATES Members who booked travels abroad before an “unforeseen” no-confidence motion can now participate remotely in meetings to select a new Chief Minister.
Last week, Deputy Moz Scott lodged the proposition to review a Bailiff’s ruling in the wake of the no-confidence vote which former Infrastructure Minister Tom Binet brought against Deputy Kristina Moore.
Following the successful vote, procedures to elect a new Chief Minister have been triggered and the States Assembly will meet next week to hear the three potential candidates.
Deputy Scott’s proposition was urgently debated yesterday, and it was adopted with 38 votes for, five votes against and one abstention.
Near the beginning of the pandemic, the Bailiff, Sir Timothy Le Cocq, ruled that “Members who were isolating or who were otherwise for health reasons or requirements of social distancing unable to attend in the Assembly” could “participate remotely online”.
However, he clarified that this did not extend to “general permission to participate from anywhere in the world” and that other forms of absence, such as being away on States business, would not apply.
Deputy Moz Scott has succeeded in getting that September 2020 ruling altered.
She said: “Normally, States Members are able to foresee when States sittings will be and arrange their work and family vacations to ensure they will be present in the States Chamber for States sittings.”
She had therefore arranged a “long-awaited break” with her partner between scheduled States sittings. The JEP contacted her for details of the trip.
She further argued that Deputy Binet’s vote of no confidence and the subsequent elections were an example of an “unforeseen circumstance”.
She continued: “This means that some States Members, prior to the lodging [of the vote], made travel arrangements to be out of the Island, despite having made reasonable efforts to be present at States sittings.”
These Members would then be required to cancel travel and family vacation arrangements for a reason that was not covered by insurance arrangements and without recompense, she added.
Deputy Tom Coles declared that he was an interested party and also had travel arrangements with his wife. He supported the proposition.
He added that cancelling was not “financially viable” because Members were not on a “high salary”.
Those who did not support the proposition included Deputy Sir Philip Bailhache, who said: “The election of a Chief Minister is an important matter and Members should be present in the Assembly.
“I am not comfortable with the vision of a Member sitting on a Caribbean beach with his or her telephone and participating in the debate in this Assembly.
“I have great sympathy for those who have made arrangements but I think that’s just the way things go. The fact that Members should be in the Assembly for such an important matter is overriding.”
