‘Inordinately expensive’ chocolates and perfume, swearing, name

‘INAPPROPRIATE’ gifting of ‘inordinately expensive’ chocolates and perfumes, swearing, name-calling and compliments… the prolonged spat between two States Members has been revealed in a set of reports released yesterday.

Both Deputies Max Andrews and Moz Scott – who are independent politicians who used to sit on the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel together before the former resigned in March – have been asked to make official apologies to the States Assembly, after an independent commissioner found them to have ‘breached’ the code of conduct which sets out how elected officials should act.

Some of its tenets include selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness and honesty.

The complaints against Deputy Andrews – submitted by Deputy Scott to commissioner for standards, Dr Melissa McCullough, on 29 April and 10 May – outlined incidents in which he said she looked ‘stunning’, two occasions in which he gifted her an ‘inordinately expensive’ box of chocolates, perfume and bath oil, and a heated exchange on Liberation Day when he called her a ‘silly cow’.

After the commissioner sent her recommendations to the Privileges and Procedures Committee – chaired by Constable Karen Shenton-Stone – Deputy Andrews further emailed Deputy Scott with an attachment entitled ‘Notes on Moz’, which put him in breach of another article in the code of conduct.

‘Notes on Moz’ contained ‘sensitive, confidential and unverified information’ which formed part of his original submission to the commissioner and which Deputy Scott had not seen.

A vote of censure against him has now been requested by the PPC and will be debated in the States Assembly on 12 September at the earliest.

The complaint against Deputy Scott, submitted by Deputy Sam Mézec in his role as president of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee, alleged that she used ‘inappropriate language’ toward Deputy Andrews.

In other words, she told him to ‘f*** off” twice, once in November 2022 over the telephone and then over Microsoft Teams in February this year.

At this time, the two were on the same Scrutiny panel, which consisted of Deputy Scott (chair), Deputy Raluca Kovacs (vice-chair) and Deputy Andrews (panel member). Constables Richard Honeycombe and Marcus Troy joined later.

According to the commissioner’s report, all three Deputies agreed that, ‘for various reasons, relationships on the panel deteriorated over time’.

‘Various efforts by Deputy Scott, Deputy Andrews and Deputy Kovacs to try and sort their differences out as a panel were not successful,’ the report continued.

On 21 March, Deputies Kovacs and Andrews resigned. In July, Mr Troy also stepped down.

Deputy Scott and Mr Honeycombe remain the only two members of the panel.

He said/she said: The complaints against Deputy Andrews

At a Diwali event on 29 October, attended by both Deputies Andrews and Scott, the latter dressed in ‘traditional Indian attire’.

Deputy Andrews said he thought it was impressive that she had gone to the effort to do so and that he admired the outfit and told Deputy Scott that she ‘looked stunning’.

He said: ‘Me and Deputy Scott were discussing how enjoyable the evening was. We were walking down the staircase and then we were walking out into the Royal Square. I just said: “Oh, you look absolutely stunning.” She said: “That’s very inappropriate.” I was a bit taken aback because I was a bit, like: “Oh, I didn’t mean it in that context.” I said: “I think you’ve taken this out of context. Your dress was splendid and very appropriate for the evening.”

Deputy Scott claimed that Deputy Andrews made the comment the following day and repeated it the day after.

Deputy Andrews refuted the claim and said: ‘I really take exception to that because it’s untrue and it hurts. It hurts having somebody accuse me of such a thing that I wouldn’t do.

‘I’m never going to put a woman in an awkward position where I would repeat the same words if she has demonstrated that she’s unhappy with it, even though it was a compliment, and that’s really been grating on me.’

Gifts

On 10 November, Deputy Andrews gave Deputy Scott what she described as ‘an inordinately expensive box of chocolates’.

He also gave a box of chocolates to fellow Scrutiny panel member Deputy Kovacs on the same day in a move which the commissioner concluded was ‘an attempt to help boost morale’.

On 12 December, Deputy Scott was the recipient of Chanel perfume, Molton Brown bath oil, Jo Malone London room spray and chocolate chip biscuits.

He also gave perfume to Deputy Kovacs but she returned it. It is unclear whether Deputy Scott returned hers.

Deputy Scott said she felt ‘uncomfortable’ with the gifts and their price, saying: ‘Deputy Andrews answered that he had bought them for me because I had been supportive of him since he had been elected and he would have struggled without me and thanked me for being there for him. I thanked him but told him it was unnecessary extravagance as I try to be supportive of all my fellow States Members when I can be. In response to my informing him I wasn’t comfortable with gifts from colleagues that weren’t to mark a special occasion, he said they were my Christmas presents.’

Deputy Andrews said: ‘The reason why I did it is I knew it was Christmas and Deputy Kovacs wanted a vote of no confidence at that point. I thought, as a panel, if the three of us haven’t even sat down yet, that would just be unfair to bring forward a vote of no confidence in January by saying, “by the way, we want you out”. I knew I had to do something… so, in the end, I just purchased a couple of presents and, yes, she seemed to be uncomfortable when I told her about the presents.’

On 16 December, Deputy Scott met the chair of the PPC to explain ‘how unsettled she was by Deputy Andrews’ behaviour, inconsistency and mixed messaging, particularly in light of some of his earlier comments’.

On 19 December, Deputy Andrews stated to the Greffier that ‘Deputy Scott insinuated I had a crush on her, which was absurd’.

Deputy Andrews apologised to Deputy Scott for making her feel uncomfortable, and she accepted his apology.

Liberation Day

The second complaint from Deputy Scott involved an incident on 9 May when he ‘publicly accused’ her of making false allegations in her first complaint.

During the exchange, he confronted her when she was ‘drinking [her] coffee in the company of my colleagues’ in the Members’ room, calling Deputy Scott a ‘silly cow’.

He said: ‘I told Deputy Scott she annoyed me with her vexatious complaint against me, which was proven to be a lie, so I said “you cow” in regard to the unwarranted stress she has placed on me [by] making false accusations.’

Deputy Scott’s version of the incident was that Deputy Andrews ‘approached me while I was drinking my coffee in the company of my colleagues and accused me of claiming that Deputy Helen Miles and Deputy Kirsten Morel had been intimidated by him when he had spoken in the States Assembly’.

The report added: ‘He said he has spoken to them and they had denied being intimidated by him. When I expressed confusion and asked him on what evidence he was claiming I had suggested he had intimidated these ministers, Deputy Andrews referred to the submission I sent to you on 30 April in support of my counter complaint against him and asserted they had not been intimidated by him and called me a “silly cow”.’

The complaint against Deputy Scott

A referral on 24 March from Deputy Sam Mézec, in his role as president of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee, related to language used by Deputy Moz Scott towards Deputy Andrews.

It is alleged that Deputy Scott used inappropriate language towards Deputy Andrews on two occasions, once in November 2022 over the telephone and once on a Microsoft Teams meeting on 14 February.

On both occasions she told him to ‘f*** off’.

On 12 January, Deputy Scott apologised to Deputy Andrews for the November 2022 swearing incident, an apology which he accepted.

In relation to the 14 February incident, there is disagreement between the Deputies over whether Deputy Scott apologised.

Deputy Mézec states that the SLC, regrettably, despite having engaged with Deputy Scott on three occasions, had not been able to satisfactorily resolve the situation.

Deputy Scott said: ‘I was exasperated, worn out and angry at the unnecessary situation he was putting me in and used the most concise form of words that came into my head at the time to end the call and enable me to return to my constituent work rather than have an unproductive and distracting conversation discussing his feelings and perception of my personal flaws without him accepting my position regarding my own feelings about him, [after he had] already refused mediation.’

Deputy Andrews asserted, among other criticisms, that Deputy Scott, in her capacity as chair of the panel, at times cut him off, did not listen to him, did not keep to time and contacted him outside normal working hours.

He stated that he was never rude to Deputy Scott, and that it was ‘her way or the highway’.

He added: ‘…I received a phone call and she imploded… She just went into a tirade, and I was uncertain how to deal with it, so I was just in silence, but she was shouting profanities down the phone. I’ve never seen her like this. I’ve seen her be tenacious and abrasive but never raise her voice. The conversation lasted about three minutes, and towards the tail end of the conversation I said, “I think you need to calm down”. And that was when she said “f off”. But during the phone call she threatened to call me back, once she had calmed down, and that was something that was very unwelcome…’

Conclusions from the commissioner

Following an investigation of the complaints, the commissioner, whose independent work is funded by taxpayers, concluded that ‘both Deputies struggle to communicate effectively with each other’.

She stated: ‘Deputy Andrews finds Deputy Scott’s way of communicating frustrating and there is evidence from Deputy Andrews, Deputy Scott and others which highlight the difficulties between the two Deputies which appears to have impacted negatively on their working relationship.

‘… I do not believe Deputy Andrews gave these gifts to Deputy Scott to romantically woo her; he stated any such suggestion was absurd.

‘Whatever the reason, I do not believe Deputy Andrews intended to hurt or offend Deputy Scott when he gave her gifts. However, it could be argued that he should have known the gifts were inappropriate.’

Dr McCullough said that Deputies Andrews and Deputy Scott, and all States Members, needed to understand that ‘compromise is essential’.

She added: ‘The aim is to get to a place where there is a mutual baseline respect for each other, where there can be professional debate with each other, where challenges and probing questions are not taken personally, and where there is a concerted effort made to understand each others’ perspective while still maintaining one’s own perspective. If we can get to that place, Jersey as a whole will be much better off.’

*In the printed edition of today’s JEP, it is incorrectly stated in a sub-headline that Deputy Andrews is a member of Reform Jersey. We would like to apologise to Reform Jersey for this error.

Read the Town Crier, Le Rocher and a whole host of other subjects like mortgage advice, business, cycling, travel and property.