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
|
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.
People enter local politics solely as a result of
unhappy relationships, should fill the bill.
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 21st century.
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
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.
