Helen Briggs, Report For Special Council Meeting, Rutland Anti Corruption Party

REPORT NO: 13/2013

COUNCIL

10 January 2013
INDEPENDENT REPORT - RUTLAND ANTI-CORRUPTION GROUP
Report of the Chief Executive

STRATEGIC AIM:

All

1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise on progress against the resolution made by Council on the 8 October 2012 to commission a report into the impact of the actions of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group upon the Council.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 That the Council considers the options set out in this report.

3. REASONS FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1
Legal advice was taken on the basis of the concerns raised during the debate on the Notice of Motion proposed at the Council meeting on 8 October 2012 concerning the actions of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group.
3.2
The legal advice which is appended to this report outlines a number of options available to the Council.
4.

BACKGROUND
4.1 At the Council meeting on 8 October 2012, the Leader proposed the following motion to Council under Procedure Rule 34:

“Is this Council aware of the damage being done to this Council by the concerted
attacks on its officers and members by a certain group of councillors?”
As a result of debate on that motion the Council resolved as follows:

1) That the Chief Executive and senior officers be congratulated on the professional way in which they conduct Rutland County Council business and that the Council has every confidence in them, and
2) That the Chief Executive organises an independent report on the actions of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Party.

4.2 On 9 October the Chief Executive and the Head of Legal Services and Deputy
Monitoring Officer met to discuss the most appropriate means of carrying out the Council’s motion. It was concluded that the purpose of the report, in accordance
with the motion, should be to examine the alleged impact of the actions that members of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Party were having upon:

Staff morale

Other members of the council

Operational delivery of council services

Reputational damage.
It was agreed that the Deputy Monitoring Officer would undertake instruction of the independent report for two reasons:

Complaints had been made against the Monitoring Officer by the Anti- Corruption Group

The Deputy Monitoring Officer had been primarily involved in the earlier Standards Committee complaint made by the Anti-Corruption Group (although the investigation was carried out by an independent appointed investigator).

4.3 It was decided to begin the review by examining the email traffic from the last election date to the present as well as reviewing the outcome of an earlier investigation following a complaint made by members of the Anti-Corruption Group to the Police and the Council’s Standards Committee regarding corruption. It was considered that this would identify the issues so that an appropriate party could be identified to carry out the review requested by Council.

4.4 The primary concerns of the Chief Executive raised at the meeting were:

continued aggressive email correspondence from members of the Anti- Corruption Group to officers of the Council

continual accusations of corruption made against officers and members both internally and to external third parties without any apparent justification

volume of email traffic to individual officers impacting upon workload (and therefore affecting their ability to deliver the service)

lack of engagement with appropriate methods of raising concerns: refusal to use scrutiny panels and refusal to attend meetings with the Chief Executive.

4.5 The initial review of the email correspondence led to an immediate concern on the
part of the Deputy Monitoring Officer that the emails demonstrated evidence of:

reckless and serious allegations by members of the Anti-Corruption Group, unsubstantiated by evidence, made with the potential to harm the reputation of officers, members and the Council itself

potential harassment of officers

failure to comply with Council processes which impeded the efficient operation of the Council.

4.5 The Deputy Monitoring Officer contacted Peter Keith-Lucas of Bevan Brittan, Solicitors, who are a well-known private firm of solicitors specialising in governance and local government law who agreed to meet at the Council offices on 17 October.

It was not considered that alternative quotes for this work would be required, as would ordinarily be required under the Contract Procedure Rules. It would not have been possible to provide a specification for this work given its nature. The costs incurred to date have been largely accumulated through the time taken to read the correspondence and these are costs which it was not considered reasonable to incur on three separate occasions in order to distinguish which adviser would provide better value. In any event the approval of spend by Council on this report
at its meeting on 12 November is considered to be sufficient dispensation from the Procedure Rules.

4.6 Information in the possession of the Chief Executive was given to Bevan Brittan by the Deputy
Monitoring Officer at the meeting on 17 October with a view to Peter Keith-Lucas scoping the request for a review of the documents. This resulted in the report to Council on the 12 November to authorise the estimated cost of reading and reviewing the paperwork in the sum of £8,000.

4.7 Advice on the specific areas of concern was received by the Deputy Monitoring Officer on 16 November. Due to the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s absence from the office a meeting could not be arranged with the Chief Executive to report back this advice until 4 December. Further advice was sought from Peter Keith-Lucas arising from issues relating to the death of a Council employee. The original legal advice and the supplementary advice are attached as Appendix A and Appendix B respectively.

5.
NEXT STEPS
5.1 Although the scope of the motion was wide, the legal advice is limited to the immediate areas of concern raised by the Chief Executive. It was considered appropriate to report this advice back to the Council as early as possible before continuing with any further review.
5.2 The Council has a number of options regarding this advice. It can:

Authorise the authority to take legal action in respect of the defamation of the authority by the Anti-Corruption Group and its members;

Authorise the authority to take legal action to seek an injunction to prevent harassment of the Chief Executive and other officers by the Anti-Corruption Group and its members;

Resolve to grant an indemnity to, and support the Chief Executive and/or other officers, to take legal action in her/their own name(s) for harassment by the Anti-Corruption Group and its members;

Resolve to instruct the Chief Executive to make a complaint on behalf of the Council to the Police against the Anti-Corruption Group and its members in respect of:
a. criminal harassment of officers of the Council, and/or
b. breach of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003;

Resolve to seek the agreement of the Anti-Corruption Group and its members to participation in alternative means of resolution , e.g. Mediation;

Resolve that all communications to any part of the Council from the Anti-Corruption Group and its members be subject to a Single Point of Contact, subject to periodic report back from the Chief Executive;

Resolve to resume a wider independent review of the impacts of the actions of the Anti-Corruption Group and its members on the Council;

Resolve to take no further action in respect of the Anti-Corruption Group and its members, subject to further report from the Chief Executive if required.

5.3 Should the Council decide to take, or support, any further action against the members of the Anti-Corruption Group it must also authorise the expenditure for such legal action.

5.4 Since the Council received the initial legal advice, the members of the Anti-Corruption Group have conducted pickets outside the Council's offices. The location and timing of these pickets, their conduct on such pickets and the fact that they have displayed placards relating to the death of a Council employee which has been the subject of an inquest, suggests that their purpose is at least in part to cause distress to Council officers. The Deputy Monitoring Officer sought additional advice on this point. As a result of this advice action can be taken as part of seeking an injunction on behalf of the Council to prevent harassment of Council officers, or could be the subject of a separate legal action to prohibit this particularly distressing activity.

6.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
6.1 The cost of any further legal or other action will depend upon which of the various options the Council resolves to take.

7. RISK MANAGEMENT
RISK
IMPACT
COMMENTS
Time
Medium
The legal advice would suggest that this matter is considered and action resolved within the near future
Viability
Medium
The advice addresses the availability and practicality of options.
Finance
Medium
Will depend upon the resolution of the Council.
Profile
High
There is likely to be significant public interest in any action taken.
Equality and Diversity
Low
Screening suggests there are no implications.
Background Papers Report Author
Complaint Document Helen Briggs
– Chief Executive’s files
Chief Executive
Tel No: (01572)722577
email: enquiries@rutland.gov.uk
A Large Print or Braille Version of this Report is available upon request – Contact 01572 722577.