WHEN States members meet at the end of September after a summer break that began at the end of July, they will approve a particularly self-serving Billet d’Etat item in a move that will underline their opposition to transparency and accountability.

The majority it gets in favour will be the clearest indication possible of how little regard its supporters have for being answerable to their electorate.

The item, of course, is designed to remove from public record how often deputies attend – or miss – departmental and sub-committee meetings.

This level of scrutiny was one of the consequences of the Harwood Report on reforming the machinery of government and, while that report was neutered, this glimpse of members’ activity slipped through.

And from the outset, deputies hated it. It doesn’t fairly reflect what they do, they say while wringing their hands. It does not take account of important things like, er, talking to other States members and leaving the island. Yes, that is actually in the Billet as justification.

But what they really mean is that they cannot bear having their attendance ranked.

The reality is that most islanders pay no regard to the statistics and do not judge the value of their representatives by such things. They know that the record is merely one piece of the jigsaw.

However, deputies are sensitive souls and it is headlines like ‘most absent’ or ‘busiest’ that really irritate. But instead of tackling the underlying issue of voter confidence and why it is so lacking, they would rather remove any evidence that might be used against them.

That the move comes from the States Assembly and Constitution Committee is revealing. It has a mandate that enables it to be progressive and reforming. It could propose performance improvements for the States, has an active directive to train and develop States members and streamline business.

But it does none of this. Instead, it is content to act as the provisional wing of the islanders-have-no-right-to-know tendency and take its bidding from the self-interested rather than acting in the interests of the electorate.

And it explains why there is such hostility to freedom of information and any meaningful openness.