A Second Hearing

The Parish Council held an Extraordinary meeting on the 17 May 2024 to hand down 'punishments' to the Subject Member accused of a whole litany of 'wrongdoing' (wrongly in my view) and hopefully anyone reading the complaints and the evidence the Subject Member had submitted.  But the NBC hearing was not necessarily to disregard the complainants' allegations but to ensure a case was made against the Subject Member - well it did cost almost £24,000 and the Solicitor had been engaged by the NBC.  Perhaps to hear both sides might have doubled the cost and the Solicitor's remit from the NBC MO was for the investigation to be focussed and quick (cheap, but not necessarily cheerful).  It was none of these things since this was not a simple case.

It would have been helpful to know what actually constituted a breach of conduct - in the 20th Century that would have been gross misconduct, gross indecency,  fraud, GBH, murder/manslaughter, bankruptcy etc..  The complaints submitted amounted to 'putting on a croaky voice', deliberately speaking quietly so no-one could hear, asking too many questions, sending too many emails especially when people were ill, taking an 'unhealthy' interest in the PC accounts, hounding the Clerk, asking about the whereabouts of unbanked cheques for £10,400, causing anxiety and mental abuse as a result etc..  (Read the Report for yourselves).  But then 2024 is a different era and UK a different country.

Nevertheless, these complaints were mentioned at length in the Report but not, as far as could be seen, examined against evidence.  That seemed to be in short supply, if any.   The Complaints made by the three Parish Councillors and the one Betley resident  were lacking in evidence to the point where the NBC Monitoring Officer (since left) was requesting the said evidence from the complainants a year later, even advising the kind of evidence for a case to be made.  If he ever received it, it was not seen by the Subject Member and it could not be found in the final Report.  

Enter the Clerk into the Breach to save the day.  Just before his retirement the Clerk requested that he make a complaint against the Subject Member  (25/6/23) . This was allowed, it seems since on 17/9/23 he forwarded further particulars to the MO.  This included a list of around 15 phrases (out of 1200 pages of emails etc) as 'evidence' of bullying, harassment, malice, and many other terms that would fit the Code of Conduct as a breach.  Such accusatory terms are both damning and damaging, libellous if they are not true.  

Examining these phrases, it was found that they had been detached from their contexts and qualifiers, thus making them appear as bald, accusatory statements which they were not.  They were also responses to accusations made by other Members and some of the complainants. It was only on closer scrutiny and a more thorough/critical reading that the misreading, misinterpretations of what was written/meant/ intended that it would show that the allegations were seemingly incorrect and no more than assumptions, as far as any critical reader could see.  The context thus played a crucial role in determining the true intent and impact of those phrases, since without it, it would be difficult even impossible to show that  the extracted phrases genuinely constituted the harmful behaviour alleged.  Although the Investigating solicitor claimed to have read 'all'  the files of evidence/context that had been sent, there is little or no evidence to show that any of this was incorporated into the Report. 

Additionally, the question asked but not answered was, that if the Subject Member's 'behaviour' was so reprehensible (and the term 'behaviour' was never really defined, why did the Clerk wait almost two years to do anything about it and certainly to make a complaint?  In an interview to the media he claimed the experience  was 'horrible'.  Well it was probably horrible for the Subject Member too and more so, given the allegations and  that she was one amongst 11 individuals with little if any support (other than from residents) whilst the Clerk had every support of the Council and Chair as evidenced in the Minutes. The Clerk also had control of the narrative  (he wrote the Minutes), and the power to change the contention occasioned by the Minutes.  He was also in charge of procedure - of the little that exists in writing as Council policy.  Some, if not much of this, had been requested to be drawn up (to prevent the council from acting ultra vires (ie unlawfully).   So he could have changed the whole dynamic of the situation  but he didn't.  And, of course, he always had the last word.

A formal complaint has been made to the BBC Stoke-live News agency re its reports on the issue.  The journalist covering the story had never contacted the Subject Member for a statement.  At the end of the meeting he went straight to the Chair and seemingly the former Clerk.  Client journalism is all the rage these days, it seems, and important around election time.   

 The Investigating Solicitor also presented an appendix to the Report which was submitted at a later date to the Subject Member (and after the Hearing of the 15 April after the Subject Member had been told that that had mistakenly/mysteriously been cancelled) and only after it had been re-arranged for 30 April that this Appendix was sent to the Subject Member.  This meant that a rebuttal was not possible at that time.  This was more than unfortunate since this Appendix contained emails from the Chair of the PC  to the then Monitoring Officer and between the MO and the complainants, the MO asking for evidence (even giving one complainant advice on what evidence might be needed).  More important was the Chair of the PC pressing the MO to hasten the complaint procedure, when the MO had advised against proceeding.  One email even suggested some kind of collusion between the Chair and the MO re a strategy for the  Subject Member's 'timely' (forced) resignation.  Seems that a deadline might have been mooted too.  And, indeed, the main purpose of many of these 'events' has been to encourage resignation via, it seems humiliation and spurious complaints.   

And the punishments which the NBC recommended to the PC:  publication, primarily of the reports, letters and Hearing Panel's Ruling (which add to the humiliation and even possibly defamation (given the above).  The publication is via the media, the PC Minutes posted on noticeboards and websites and other social media;  removal from outside bodies on which the PC is represented (the Subject Member sits on none of these as these have been filled mainly by Betley Councillors);  no committees of the Parish Council - eg the Audit and Finance Committee and the Planning Committee etc.. (Hmmm).  The Subject Member has already been silenced from speaking on these issues anyway, so this is only formalising what has already been happening on an ad hoc/informal basis); the Clerk has been instructed to identify anything the Subject Member says that could, in her view, be interpreted as disorderly,  improper or offensive (Standing Order 18b) the Chair will then rule that the Member be not heard or removed from the room (this could be triggered by asking a question that any Member of Council does not wish to answer - indeed any kind  of scrutiny); that the Subject Member be censured (again). 

At the meeting on the 17 May 2024 the Subject Member was also forbidden to vote by the Chair, and ruled by the Clerk, because of where the Member chose to sit.  Where a Member sits is not relevant.  and this is an issue of serious concern.   In cancelling and silencing the subject Member's voice, this could render the Council, if not less than open, transparent or accountable - which it is the job of a good Councillor to ensure - but also unlawful.   A complaint is being lodged with the NBC MO

Part way through the Subject Member was asked if she would resign.  The Subject Member said 'No'.

The reason for this repeated question is curious sine no real reason is given why she should. But there is a general election pending and an air of desperation seems to be creeping in. 

The letter from the MO to the Subject Member suggests less than a fair resolution to this 'event'/Hearing in that the Subject Member is informed of being 'inappropriately sarcastic' (ironic maybe but never sarcastic) and disrespectful towards other parish Councillors (when the reverse has been true).  The MO hoped that the content of the 'independent' Report will be 'a guide' to 'identifying the ways' in which the Subject Member's conduct has been below the required standard.  He went on to state that 'We sincerely hope that that it is possible for conduct' of the Subject Member and 'for the whole of the Parish council to work productively and cordially together in the future, for the good of the community that you all serve'.  The last part cannot be argued with, but, given the behaviour of the rest of the Council his exhortation re the rest might be difficult to achieve with unilateral action alone of the victim/scapegoat.  The Subject Member could not singlehandedly (even with the most ill will in the world change the complexion of this long-standing regime, particularly when it seems happy with itself and its own behaviour.  And any more than the Subject Member could 'singlehandedly' prevent the business of the meeting being conducted, or 'singlehandedly' wipe out the PC financial reserves.  Cllr Bullock please note!        

So there we have it.  Justice and democracy courtesy of Betley Parish Council and the NBC in action. Perhaps it is time for Wrinehill to consider devolution.