Board of Commissioners conflict of interest policy

Glossary

Defined terms are indicated throughout this document as follows:

the Policy	conflict of interest policy
Conflict(s)	conflicts of interest
Commission Law	the Financial Services Commission (Jersey) Law 1998
Register	register of interests
JFSC	Jersey Financial Services Commission

1 Introduction: why a policy for Commissioners

1.1 This document sets out the conflicts of interest policy (the Policy) in respect of Commissioners.

1.2 Commissioners are the ultimate decision-makers of the Jersey Financial Services Commission (JFSC) and take the most serious regulatory decisions.

1.3 There are statutory requirements for Commissioners regarding the management of conflicts of interest (Conflicts). The statutory rules are:

1.3.1 disclosure of the nature and existence of the conflict to be made at a meeting or by a written notice brought to the attention of the meeting

1.3.2 disclosure to be minuted

1.3.3 Commissioner to withdraw from the matter, and that to be minuted

1.3.4 the disclosure of membership or a directorship of an organisation is sufficient disclosure

1.4 Those statutory requirements are supplemented by this policy, which the Board of Commissioners has adopted to provide additional clarity. What is a conflict? How is it identified in possible grey areas? How should a Commissioner proceed if there is an option to deal with a potential conflict before a meeting?

1.5 The Policy details the identification, registration and management of Conflicts of Interest as they apply to Commissioners.  In most cases, the same requirements also apply to JFSC employees. 

1.6 The existing Conflicts Policy for employees requires the registration of Conflicts.  Commissioners will usually be required to register the same interests as employees.  However, this approach can be less effective than for JFSC employees. In practice, it is also necessary for Commissioners to be vigilant as each Commission Board meeting takes place. Consideration will often need to be given to recusing in respect of a broader variety of interests, given that Commissioners have to make the final decisions on regulatory sanctions.  Such decisions may have a very significant consequences for individuals involved, bringing into question whether distant relationships amount to Conflicts.

1.7 The biggest difference between this Policy and the equivalent for JFSC employees is that it is adjusted to reflect the final character of their decision-making and non-executive roles.  It is also more likely that Commissioners will need to consider whether relationships that do not have to be registered create problems in particular cases. 

1.8 It is also very important to give a clear account of the reasons for a Commissioner continuing in a matter when the issue of a potential conflict of interest has been raised.

1.9 There are other differences arising from the character of the Commissioner role:

1.9.1 Commissioners will work part-time for the JFSC and hold other roles

1.9.2 Commissioners do not have a line manager

1.9.3 Commissioners are appointed to be the ultimate decision-makers of the Commission, and a diversity of experience and backgrounds is important in the choice of appointments. Therefore, unnecessary recusal removes important experience from Commission decision-making

1.10 Although it may seem simplest for Commissioners to recuse themselves whenever an issue of conflict of interest arises, the case law says otherwise.  The question of conflicts should be considered carefully and objectively.

Read the full Board of Commissioners conflict of interest policy.