Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
10 May 2023
The only parish councillor to be recommended for censure publicly.
With all the publicity about my sanctions, I’ve been wondering how many other parish councillors had gone through the nightmare of Bucks Council’s complaints process? And how many other councillors have had the recommendations of BC’s Standards Sub-Committee publicised in a press release?
So, I put in an foi request. Here’s the response: -
The number of complaints of breaches of the Councillors' Code of Conduct received by BC’s Monitoring Officer was 12 in 2020/21; 22 in 2021/2; and 15 in 2022/23. A total of 49 complaints.
Apart from me, only 1 other councillor over the past three years has had their complaint reach the Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee. That councillor had seven complaints against them. The Sub-Committee concluded that the councillor had breached the Code.
Bucks Council declined to tell me if the Sub-Committee recommended the relevant parish council to censure and sanction that councillor. However, it is clear from the papers of the Standards Committee that the Sub-Committee did not make their recommendation public, nor issue a press release for that councillor. And the name of that councillor has not been disclosed.
So, I hold the curious distinction of being the only parish councillor for at least the past 3 years for whom the Sub-Committee has named the councillor and decided to publicise its recommendations.
Now for such a distinction, you would think that my behaviour had in some way been extreme.
So, I went back to the report of the investigator to remind myself what he said about the three complaints made against me. (I stopped reading documents from Bucks Council in December so have no idea what the Sub-Committee concluded.)
The first complaint was about a meeting with the then Clerk in May 2021. The investigator said “there was no suggestion I resorted to violence, shouted or acted in a physically aggressive way.” There was also no suggestion that I was rude to the Clerk, used offensive language or raised my voice.
All I actually did, according to the investigator, was two things. First, I placed the ex-Clerk “in an invidious position”. That “invidious position” was to decide, after prior notice from me of some weeks, whether to give me some information or not. Second, I acted “contrary to the ex-Clerk’s wishes.”
These two actions, the investigator concluded constituted disrespect and bullying and a breach of the Code.
The second complainant, the ex- Chair of the parish council, supported the ex-Clerk’s complaint, although he was not present during the relevant meeting. He also made numerous other complaints stretching back to 2015, none of which the investigator investigated.
However, despite the investigator stating that he would place the burden of proof on the complainant, the investigator decided to carry out an investigation of a complaint the ex-Chair had not made and for which the ex-Chair provided no evidence. As this complaint was never put to me, pre- December 2022, I am left guessing what it is.
All I did for the third complaint was to decline, politely, not to meet with an ex-deputy Clerk without a witness as she was making public allegations against me as part of a case she was preparing for constructive dismissal. This is something I had the right to do under the Councillors’ Code of Conduct. The investigator ignored this right and decided this constituted disrespect and bullying too.
So, I have to ask myself – and I have really tried to be objective about this – why did the Standards Sub- Committee decide to publicise my cases? Was my behaviour so extreme that the Sub-Committee felt the cases should be publicised – the only time it has done this in at least three years?
A number of people have suggested that Bucks Council publicised my cases for their own political reasons. I have been a left-wing activist for many years and have exposed a number of poor policies and practices of Bucks Council in the past. Perhaps, it’s been suggested, Bucks Council has used this as an opportunity to get its own back. It’s what called a witch hunt.
I have no evidence for BC’s treatment of me as being political nor that I was targeted.
However, I am still stuck on the question of why I am the only parish councillor whose cases have been publicised. I leave the question with you.
Membership of the Sub-Committee breaches the law
The Sub- Committee hearing my cases was composed of three Conservative councillors – Cllrs Broom, Chapple and Thompson. The law requires the membership of such a committee to include members from more than one political party (see S. 15 and 16 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 if you are interested). This provides some protection against political bias.
I don't know why Bucks Council selected three Conservatives to sit on the Sub-Committee and didn't ensure the membership of the Sub-Committee was properly balanced to comply with the law. I’ll leave you with that question too.
The Ombudsman is investigating my complaint against Bucks Council of institutional harassment and bullying and abuse of process. The possible breach of the law under the 1989 Act has been added to their investigation.
Costs
I put in an foi request to find out how much the investigation into my three cases has cost the taxpayer. Bucks Council said that the cost in relation to the appointment of the investigator amounted to £7,082 for all three cases.
The Council did not tell me the staff costs because “the processing of member code of conduct complaints is an expected duty of the staff who worked on them and so is integral to their substantive roles within the Council, so no staffing costs arose in the processing of these complaints.”
Most of the staff working on my cases are qualified lawyers. I would hazard a guess that the cases have cost not much short of £50,000.
Impact of sanctions
The only sanction which has had any practical impact on me says: -
“Effective from today (4 April 2023) until you attend the training above, you are excluded from attending any premises of the Parish Council except to attend meetings of the Council (given that your behaviour was directed towards an employee outside of a meeting context).”
I asked the current locum Clerk what this actually meant. Her advice is that “premises” means the Council offices and “meetings of the Council” includes Council and Committee meetings.
So, the only thing I haven't been able to do so far is go into the Council offices to meet the new Clerk in her first week. However, as I have got COVID and am isolating, the issue is academic.
So far, the sanctions have had virtually no practical impact on me.
Next Up
The next meeting of the Council is on 16 May and is it’s the Annual meeting when we vote for a new Chair. Should be interesting. I hope a lot of residents attend.
PS. I was on holiday and couldn’t attend the Annual Parish Meeting on 25 April. I would welcome your feedback on the meeting.
Comments