While the Bailiff does NOT have a casting vote, he can decided what questions or propositions to allow, and how these may be worded. As Roy Le Herrissier pointed out in his submission, when Paul le Clare was bringing a proposition to the States, the part that was critical of the role of the judiciary was struck out.
This is a clear example of a conflict of interests, and other States members (not including Stuart Syvret) have also told me of times when either a proposition had to be reworded or would be refused point blank. It is surely for the House to decide on a proposition, and not for the Bailiff to allow or disallow it, with no means of appeal.
I did not make a submission, but I did start wording one, and while I in fact had no trouble with the dual role, it was this aspect of the Bailiff's powers that I would have asked to be curtailed.
The Bailiff is also supposed to be neutral politically, but in what has become a notorious Liberation Day speech, he spoke out on a matter of politics, and, according to many of the people I know who were here in the Occupation, completely transgressed the boundaries of what he should have done at a ceremonial function of remembrance. It was a highly political intervention, and not one for a neutral president of the States to make, nor one which any other Bailiff has made.
Of previous Bailiffs, Crill took political swipes mostly in his posthumous (and sometimes wickedly venomous) memoir, written after he had left office, while Erault's main claim to fame was effectively banning Monty Python's Life of Brian, which lead to the Bailiff's sole powers of decision being curtailed by a consultative panel. The Life of Brian is, of course, now available locally on DVD.