Commons speaker John Bercow accused of trying to rig board of MPs' expenses watchdog Ipsa had assumed that board members would be given the option of continuing on the board of Ipsa, or stand down, after their four-year terms expired on January 13. However, earlier this year Mr Bercow told Sir Ian that they would all have to reapply for their jobs instead. He also set up a new selection panel including a former MP and a member of the speaker's committee - which approves Ipsa's funding - to vet the new appointments. Rather than re-apply, the four members - ex-appeal court judge Sir Scott Baker, charity head Jackie Ballard, businessman Ken Olisa and Professor Isobel Sharp - quit their £10,000 a year two days a month posts en masse. Details of the row are contained in 50 pages of letters between Sir Ian and Mr Bercow, covering a three month period between April and July this year. In the letters, released by Ipsa today, Sir Ian dismissed Mr Bercow's contention that he was legally obliged to hold a full 100,000 selection process for the four posts. He also raised concerns over a "perception" that Mr Bercow's changes were "likely to result in the wholesale turnover of the current members of the board." Sir Ian suggested Mr Bercow's reforms might be seen as a form of revenge from MPs who have frequently criticised the tougher allowances regime which was introduced in the wake of the 2009 expenses scandal. Sir Ian said: "There is no doubt that Ipsa has taken a number of decisions which have not proved popular with some MPs. But in our view, reinforced by the views of others, the decisions have been both necessary and appropriate... I am sure that you would not wish the temporary unpopularity of decisions to be perceived as providing grounds for challenging the continuing membership of those making the decisions. He added: "It is in nobody's interest for expenses once again to become a live issue in the shape of a debate about the future composition of the Board and what this might say about Ipsa's role as an independent regulator. I make no apologies for pointing out the fact that there is much at stake here, not least the reputation and future standing of Ipsa and indeed the reputation of parliament itself. But Mr Bercow insisted that under law every appointment to the board of Ipsa had "to be subject to fair and open competition at the end of every fixed term." He told Sir Ian: "I have been advised further that were I, as Speaker, to direct that any appointment be carried out by any procedure other than on merit on the basis of full and open competition, that direction would be amenable to judicial review." But Sir Ian argued this only applied to "initial" appointments, and a competition was only usually held if the serving members" performance was "unsatisfactory." He highlighting the risk that new board members would be seen as "placemen/women of Parliament," he stressed there was "no good reason" for shaking up the appointments process. The inclusion on the selection panel of ex-Tory MP Peter Atkinson would "inevitably introduce a perception of party politics," according to Sir Ian. "This would be wholly undesirable given the need for Ipsa to be and be seen to be independent of political influence," he wrote. Sir Ian - whose own term does not end until 2015 - said the £100,000 cost of the selection process was not "a good use of public funds" and cautioned that a key review of MPs" pay and pensions could be hampered. "Continuity for the board is, in my view, crucial if we are to agree a new settlement in a timely manner," he went on. The process for appointing new independent board members was launched in August, and with successful candidates due to be announced over the coming weeks. Although Sir Ian did not agree with the decision to hold a full selection process, he is understood to believe that the new selection process was conducted fairly. A spokesman for Mr Bercow denied that he was trying to exert influence improper political influence over Ipsa. He said: "The recruitment of Board members was undertaken by an independent panel, the Speaker played no role in the recruitment process. There is a greater risk to the reputation of Parliament by not adhering to the law that it passed, hence why a free and open competition was undertaken. The Speaker took legal advice which confirmed that this provision required him to initiate a fair and open competition at the end of every fixed term. The Speaker accordingly set up an independent panel, including Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, to run such a competition. It came as a jury today ruled former Labour MP Margaret Moran fiddled her expenses claims to receive more than £53,000. The 57-year-old claimed nearly her entire annual allowance in one bogus expense entry and forged invoices for more than £20,000 of non-existent goods and services. Moran, who served as MP for Luton South from 1997 until the 2010 General Election, was found to have falsely claimed around £60,000 in parliamentary expenses between 2004 and 2008, of which she received £53,000. Jurors at Southwark Crown Court in London were unable to return a guilty verdict after it was ruled that Moran was unfit to stand trial for mental health reasons. Instead, in a trial of issue, the jury found that she had committed 15 counts of false accounting and six counts of using a false instrument over the claims for parliamentary expenses.