Thanet District Council Standards Complaints. And Dysfunctional Council.

There has been much talk recently of the time and money wasted by councillors complaining about each other to standards.

Simon Moores about this yesterday and I have just got around to reading it, see http://birchington.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/counting-down-days.html and the comment posted by Roger Latchford saying that he had been victorious in one such complaint.

Here is the case summery, by way of example:

THANET DISTRICT COUNCIL

STANDARDS ASSESSMENT SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Summary of assessment made on 14 November 2012 – Case No:  TDCSC89/12

The Standards Assessment Sub-committee met on 14 November 2012 to assess a complaint into an allegation by Mr Roger Latchford that Councillor John Worrow had breached Thanet District Council’s Code of Conduct by conducting himself in manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or Authority into disrepute.

Members of the Sub-committee considered that comments about the business of Thanet District Council made in a letter addressed to a Thanet District Council Officer and signed as Councillor John Worrow, he was acting as a Member of Thanet District Council.  Any doubts about this were resolved by Paragraph 1.2 of the Preamble  to the Members Code of Conduct which made it clear that the Code applied to a Member when acting, claiming to act or giving the impression that the were acting as  Member of the Thanet District Council. In this regard a member of the public might reasonably interpret the views expressed by Councillor Worrow as those of an elected member of Thanet District Council.  References to Mr Latchford in the letter and on social media were offensive to the complainant but also had the potential to reflect badly on the Council.

Formal Assessment Decision

The Standards Assessment Sub-committee recommended that the matter should be referred to the Monitoring Officer with a direction that Councillor Worrow be  requested to apologise  in writing to Mr Latchford and provide him with a written assurance that his personal attacks in the press, and social media would cease.

Finality of Decision

There is no right of review of a decision to direct the Monitoring Officer to procure a written apology.

The council has a list of this years complaints so far, this year.

COMPLAINT NO:	DATE	INVESTIGATE	COMPLAINANT	AGAINST	ALLEGATION / FINDING
2012					·
TDCSC68/12	25 Jan 12	Closed	Member of Public	Parish Cllr	·         Disrespect ·         Assessment 1 March 2012 ·         NFA
TDCSC69/12	27 Feb 12	Closed	Member of Public	District Cllr	·         Disrespect ·         Assessment 1 March ·         Other Action – letter of apology
TDCSC70/12	29 Feb 12	Closed	District Cllr	District Cllr	·         Blog/disrespect ·         Assessment 2 April ·         Other Action ‘letter of apology to Chairman’
TDCSC71/12	5 March 12	Closed	District Cllr	District Cllr	·         Blog/disrespect ·         As TDCSC70/12 ·         Other Action
TDCSC72/12	22 April 12	Closed	Member of public	District Cllr	·         Disrespect ·         Assessment 29 May ·         Other Action
TDCSC73/12	1 May 12	Closed	District Cllr	District Cllr	·         Blog/disrespect ·         Assessment 29 May ·         NFA
TDCSC74/12	21 May 12	closed	Member of public	District Cllr	·         Disrespect at meeting ·         Assessment 29 May ·         Other Action
TDCSC75/12	21 May	Investigation	Member of public	District Cllr	·         Blog/disrespect ·         Assessment 29 May ·         NFA ·         Investigation on appeal
TDCSC76/12	21 May 12	Investigation	Member of public	District Cllr	·         Blog/disrespect ·         Assessment 29 May ·         NFA ·         Investigation on appeal
TDCSC77/12	21 May 12	Investigation	Member of public	District Cllr	·         Disrespect/disrepute at meeting ·         Assessment 29 May ·         Investigation
TDCSC78/12	29 May 12	Investigation	District Cllr	District Cllr	·         Blog/disrespect ·         Assessment 20 June ·         Investigation
TDCSC79/12	29 May	closed	Member of public	District Cllr x 2	·         Disrespect/disrepute at meeting ·         Assessment 20 June ·         NFA
TDCSC80/12	6 June 12	closed	District Cllr	District Cllr	·         Disrespect/bullying ·         Assessment 20 June ·         NFA
TDCSC81/12	6 June 12	closed	District Cllr	District Cllr	·         Disrespect ·         Assessment 20 June ·         NFA
TDCSC82/12	11 June 12	Closed Open	Member of Public	Parish Cllr x 6	·         Disrespect/interest ·         Assessment 20 June ·         NFA ·         Review 31 October
TDCSC83/12	12 June	Investigation	P Cllr	District Cllr	·         Disrespect ·         Assessment 20 June ·         Investigation
TDCSC84/12	withdrawn				·         withdrawn
TDCSC85/12	25 June	Closed	P Cllr	P Cllr	·         Disrespect ·         Assessment 20 August ·         NFA
TDCSC86/12	withdrawn				·         withdrawn
TDCSC87/12	17 July	Open	District Cllr	District Cllr	·         comment at council ·         Assessment 20 August ·         adjourned
As above	17 July	Open	District Cllr	District Cllr	·         comment at council ·         Assessment 20 August ·         Adjourned ·         Sub-cttee 31 Oct
As above	17July	Open	District Cllr	District Cllr	·         comment at council ·         Assessment 20 August ·         Adjourned ·         Sub-cttee 31 Oct
As above	18 July	Open	District Cllr	District Cllr	·         comment at council ·         Assessment 20 August ·         Adjourned ·         Sub-cttee 31 Oct
TDCSC88/12	30 July	Closed	District Cllr	District Cllr	·         Bullying ·         Assessment 20 August ·         NFA
Stats 22 August					·
TDCSC89/12	5 Sept	Open	Member of public	District Cllr	·         Remarks on Facebook
TDCSC90/12	10 October	Open	Member of public	District Cllr	·         Withdrawal of Apology
TDCSC91/12	9 October	Open	Parish Councillor	Parish Councillor	·         You Tube clip

As one ploughs through it is surprising where one councillor is complains about another how often blogs are involved.   

The Northcote Parkinson quotation “Men enter local politics solely as a result of being unhappily married.” Springs to mind here, perhaps I could evolve a les sexist and more politically correct version for the 21^st century.

People enter local politics solely as a result of unhappy relationships, should fill the bill. 

Still on the subject of our council the following email has been forwarded to the members of the labour group.

From: Ian Driver

To: "Jack Cohen and John Worrow

Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2012, 20:39

Subject: TIG, Pleasurama & Overview and Scrutiny Panel

Dear Jack and John

I am led to believe that elements within the ruling Labour Group are trying to have me removed from my post as Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (OSP).

I can only assume that this action is being taken  because of my campaign about the Pleasurama Development in Ramsgate and mine and others sugestions  that any changes to the Pleasurama development agreement be discussed and voted on by full Council and not by a single Cabinet member in a secret meeting.

If what I have been told is true, then the actions of those trying to have me removed from my post are shamefully undemocratic and likely to bring the Council into disrepute.

The constitutional role of the OSP is, amongst other things,  to hold the Council's Cabinet to account and to examine, question and challenge its decisions. It is highly improper and undemocratic to attemept to subvert and undermine the Chairman of the OSP for simply doing his/her job.

As you know OSP has expressed strong reservations about how the Cabinet and the council are managing aspects of the Pleasurama project. Rather than acting  upon these concerns, the Cabinet has resisted the proposals of OSP to manage Pleasurama in a more open and transparent manner, In so doing the Cabinet has, in my opinion, also acted contrary to the 2005 advice of the Government Audit Commission. I have of course reported this to the District Auditor.

The failure of the Cabinet to acknowledge and act on strong public and political concern about  Pleasuarama especially the desire for a debate and final decision at full council, reminds me of the many occassions when Clive Hart, as Leader of the Opposition, berated the Conservative Cabinet for not listening to OSP. It's astonshingly hypocrtical that Clive Hart's Cabinet is now doing exactly the same thing it members so voiceficerously complained about just over a year ago.

This failure to respond postively to crticsim and to act inclusively as Clive has often said he would, has resulted in the appalling spectacle of the Chairman of the Council using his casting vote in what I believe to be an extremely ill-considered and blatantly partisan way,  to stifle democratic  debate on an issue of great concern to the people of Ramsgate.

If what I have been told is true, these efforts to have me removed from my post as Chairman of OSP demonstrate that the Cabinet are happily prepared to subvert the democratic process to silence any criticism of their actions. This might be seen by many voters  as dragging Thanet democracy into the sewer and may cost the Labour Party dearly at the next election

 As a member of the Thanet Independent Group (TIG) I seek you re-assurances that you have not been complicit in, or approved,  these alleged manoeuvres to have me removed.  I expect Councillor John Worrow the TIG Leader to discuss my concerns with Clive Hart Leader of the Labour Group and seek his assurances that no plots or manoeuvres are underway to have me removed.

If such actions are taking place then I would expect the TIG group to behave honourably and pull out of our agreement with the Labour Group.

Finally, when TIG  agreed to support the Labour Group and allow it to take control of the Council we did so on the basis that we could openly voice our criticisms of Labour much in the same way as the Lib Dems and Tories in national government are doing virtually everyday. If efforts are being made to remove me from my post for doing something which we agreed was acceptable then our agreement with Labour Group is worth nothing.

As a TIG member I expect your full support on this matter and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely

Cllr Ian Driver

Update Clive has sent me his reply to Ian

RESPONSE TO IAN DRIVER STATEMENT

(As he apparently published his own email to his colleagues).

From: CLIVE HARTTo: IanDriver

Cc: JohnWorrow JACKCOHEN

Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2012, 21:34

Subject: Fw: TIG, Pleasurama & Overview and Scrutiny Panel

Ian

Correctly or incorrectly, your email below was blind copied to one of my members.

I therefore want you to know that you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG in your assumption that I/we have in any way tried to have your group remove you as the Chair of Scrutiny.

Indeed, understanding the recent stresses within your group, in any conversation I have had recently with your Thanet Independent Group colleagues I have urged them to do all they can to to try to keep you in their group and as the Chair of Scrutiny.

This email is absolutely factual - please check these facts with your two group colleagues.

Clive

(Cllr Clive Hart - Labour TDC Leader)

Further update, here is John Worrow’s reply to Ian driver:

Hello Ian

Thank you for your email. As you know, I support your decision to retract your call for Doug Clarke to resign as Chairman, and I am grateful that you have agreed to consult the group before making press releases of a serious nature; these two things were my only concern. We both possibly need to keep things in perspective.

I have spoken to the leader like you requested and he assures me that there is no conspiracy against any member of our group.

We shouldn't allow mischief makers with their own agendas to twist the truth or make maintains out of molehills - this is our first difficult patch, we might not always agree, but I don't think we're doing such a bad job if you look at the bigger picture -

so lets keep going. Speak soon!

Regards

John

 



I may ramble on here, if I can think of anything else to say about it.