Cllr Michael Haley Oakham Mayor Writes To Trustees of Victioria Hall Asking them to ban me from public building and Clerk the clerk has made a complaint to the police

Cllr Michael Haley Oakham Mayor Writes To Trustees of Victoria Hall Asking them to ban me from public building.


Cllr Michael Haley Mayor and Chairman of Oakham Town Council has written a defamortary
letter to the Trustees of Victoria Hall Oakham. Victoria Hall is the building in which Oakham
Town Council is based.
Cllr Haley requested the Trustees made up of members of the public prevent me from carrying
out voluntary work at the hall to protect the Clerk Allison Greaves from me and to protect privacy
as I may be listening to private conversations being conducted in the council office as I carry
out my voluntary work.


I am now told the Clerk has now reported me to Leicestershire Police for harassment.


I find it shocking that a Clerk and members of the council can be permitted to intimidate
another councillor for pointing out failings and for making no offensive criticism of this
ineffective dysfunctional council.

I told it is harassment for pointing out a public audit report in which Grant Thornton
state there has been a significant failure in governance. Brought about by the Clerks
failure to complete a basic form correctly.

I am told it harassment to point out when the Clerk gives me incorrect legal advice
because she is not qualified and mainly due to her failing to obtain the required
qualifications in the time given.

Although the constant intimidation causes me a  great deal of upset, I welcome another
chance to prove I am not guilty of anything the Clerk or the council claim.

I have notified my advocate David Swingler who represented me in September 2013.




At Wednesdays Council Meeting the council will be asked to consider this exempt item.

Despite the fact I have followed all of the Councils imposed administrative sanctions

including not being able to visit the office. The staffing committee now want to spend

£1000 of public money to seek legal advice on how to obtain an injunction to protect the

clerk.


This is next weeks exempt agenda item published as the chairman chose to make the matter

public by writing to the Trustees of Victoria Hall. The Trustees of Victoria Hall are made
up of members of the public and Rutland County Councillors and have no right to 
be involved in employment matters or matter that effect me at Oakham Town Council
The Trustees have responded to Cllr Haley stating they do not want to be involved in
Council matters.





Report Authors: Staffing Committee

Title Councillors

Subject: Conduct of Cllr Brookes and Protection of the Clerk and risk to Council


Applicable Strategy: 

1. Provide a supportive and professional environment for staff to enable professional development and ensure efficient and effective working practices.


Background

Early this year the Clerk made a complaint concerning Cllr Brookes behaviour towards her. The Independent Risk Assessor engaged by Council stated that ‘The behaviour towards AG (the Clerk) would be classed as bullying and harassment as defined by ACAS: AG is the target of bullying and harassment from Councillor M Brooks.’  

An ensuing Grievance Panel recommended Administrative actions were put in place to protect the Clerk. These were resolved by Council (Appendix 1). 

The measures put in place have been effective in that e-mails sent to the Clerk by Cllr Brookes have been filtered by the Chairman and Deputy Chairman. However the sheer volume of e-mails that Cllr Brookes sends, copied to all councillors and others, has resulted in a number reaching the Clerk. These have been appended to e-mail sent to the Clerk (by the micro-soft e-mail software) by other Councillors.  Many of these e-mails are offensive, defamatory and vexatious. There are a great many requests for information that distract the Clerk from her other duties.  Cllr Brookes also continues to deride the Clerk on his blog, something Council can not control. 

Following further complaints made by the Clerk the Chairman of the Staffing Committee  contacted Council’s Human Resources consultant and forwarded samples of Cllr Brookes e-mail. The HR Consultant reviewed these and corresponded with the Clerk’s union representative and a Peterborough City Council employment lawyer, both of whom were involved in the early Grievance taken out by the Clerk against Cllr Brookes.


The HR Consultant has responded:


I have spoken with Lionel Thatcher at the SLCC regarding Cllr Brookes conduct towards the Employee, and we agreed the following;


1.    Both the SLCC and Town Council are united in their wish to defend the Employee from this conduct.


2.    There are two elements to the Councillor’s conduct which are unacceptable.  One being his covert videoing of the Employee, the other being the numerous emails he publishes.


3.   Both of these acts constitute a breach of the Data Protection Act and also the Protection from Harassment Act.


Lionel believes that the Councillor’s conduct constitutes harassment, stalking and a genuine fear of violence against the Employee.


The allegations of harassment and stalking are based on the nature and amount of material the Councillor has published via email and You Tube related to the Employee.  This material is published in the form of both emails and covert videos and photographs.  


The legal definition of harassment is any activity that would cause alarm or distress in the opinion of a reasonable person (PHA’97 s4A I b ii).  There is little doubt that the conduct of the Councillor has caused alarm and distress.  The definition of stalking involves publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person (PHA’97 2A 3c)


Both the Employee and her Union Rep believe that both the harassment and stalking represents a genuine risk of violence (PHA’97 4(2)). 


Consequently the Councillor could be subject to civil action in the courts for damages caused by the anxiety he has inflicted upon the Employee, and the Court could issue an injunction against him.  In addition because the Employee genuinely believes she is at risk of violence from the Councillor, the matter can also be reported to the Police, as a breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.  Unfortunately the Police don’t have a great track record of taking up issues which are reported to them by the public, and this matter may have a better result if it is reported to the Police by the Council’s Solicitor. 

I am concerned that if the Council doesn’t take this threat of violence seriously, the Employee could claim Constructive Dismissal.

Further:

Lionel Thatcher SLCC – 21/11/17

 I do have concerns about the behaviour of this man and I honestly believe that a complaint of harassment should be made to the police.  Would it also be worthwhile including a complaint under the Malicious Communications Act 1988?   It may be that some of his emails might be relevant to that.


With regards the Data Protection Act I would also like to know opinion Amy Brown at Peterborough CC has in relation to an Elected Member placing a Council in breach of this legislation and what action can be taken against that Member.


The Peterborough City Council employment lawyer is aware of the situation however her advice would be on a fee paying basis of £80.00/hr. However she has provided an opinion:

Hi Michael 

 By way of update, I have briefly discussed your email with my information governance colleague.

 We are both firmly of the view that if there are concerns that the clerk is being harassed then they must be reported to the police as soon as possible.  The Clerk herself would be best placed to do that as the 'victim'.  


The Clerk has acted upon this advice and has made a complaint to Leicestershire Police under the Protection from Harassment Act and Data Protection Act.


Since May 2017 Cllr Brookes has published in excess of 1,000 e-mails, sent to or copied to the Clerk, all Councillors including the RCC Monitoring Officer, local press and the H.R. consultant. Many of these violate Council’s Code of Conduct and the Nolan Seven Principals of Public Life. These include many derogatory references and untrue statements concerning the Clerk, Chairman and other Councillors. Appendix 2 contains recent examples. All e-mails are on file and will be made available to the Police and other bodies as required.


Recommendation

In addition to the administrative actions already in place, Councillor Brookes OTC e-mail account is suspended until further notice. Cllr Brookes contact with the Clerk is restricted to paper letters addressed to S.P.O.C., c/o OTC Council Office. These to be hand delivered to the Victoria Hall post box or posted using Royal Mail or a carrier of Cllr Brookes choosing. These additional measures to protect the Clerk are reviewed in March 2018.


Legal advice is sought concerning taking out an injunction against Cllr Brookes and the Staffing Committee is authorised to spend up to £1000.00 + VAT perusing this.


Appendix One 

Appears to be a copy of a staffing committee report.

Please note the many spelling mistakes
a common factor of many documents produced by the town council.be

Please note the evidence that the real aim of a few at this council is to exclude
me from the council, They were advised against removing me from committees
as that would be a sanction. I believe all the restrictions placed in my way since
Cllr Haley was made our chairman are sanctions and obstruct me from carrying
out my role as a councillor effectively.
When he was absent there was no issue between me and the council and
many members said the meeting conducted in his absence was the best for a long
time.


OAKHAM TOWN COUNCIL

Report Authors: Grievance Panel, Cllrs Haley, Ind and Skipworth

Title

Grievance 

Subject: Grievance raised by the Clerk

Applicable Strategy: 

1. Provide a supportive and professional environment for staff to enable professional development and ensure efficient and effective working practices.

Background

Following a letter of complaint from an employee dated 19 May 2017, addressed to the Chairman concerning the conduct of Cllr Brookes towards them and confirmation from the employee that they wished this to be treated as a grievance, the Chairman initially sought advice from LRALC and Chris Moses, Personnel Advice and Solutions Ltd. In accordance with OTC’s Grievance Procedure (May 2012), the Informal Procedure and stages one and two of the Formal Procedure did not result in a resolution. The employee did not feel that mediation was an acceptable option.


In its role as Employer it is incumbent upon the Council to address this complaint against one of its Members, as the Council is vicariously liable for their conduct, and also responsible for the protection of Employees.  Any complaint of this nature against a Councillor is effectively against the whole Council, to which it has to respond to ensure that it complies with ACAS Guidelines to Employers in the management of staff disputes.  Failure to comply with these guidelines would expose the Council to the risk of the Employee resigning and submitting a claim for Constructive Dismissal to the Employment Tribunal, for which she could be awarded up to one year’s net pay, plus a basic award equivalent to her redundancy severance entitlement.


In accordance with stage three of the Grievance procedure, a Grievance Panel comprising of three members of the Staffing Committee, Cllrs Haley, Ind and Skipworth, were appointed by the Staffing Committee.


Council resolved to instruct Alison Jones, Pentire Partnership, to carry out a Health and Safety Stress Risk Assessment and Amy Brown, Employment Lawyer Peterborough City Council, to act on behalf of Oakham Town Council in providing advice concerning the investigating of a formal grievance by an employee. Advice throughout has  been received from Chris Moses, Council’s retained HR advisor. The advice received has been given due regard by the Panel. 


Chris Moses has advised: 

Council has a duty to protect and to be seen to protect employees for the reasons detailed above. Further that to comply with Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Council must ensure that the work environment is a safe place and that any potential risks, such as intimidation, are reduced as much as reasonably possible.  That failure to do so could result in claims for Personnel Injury as well as constructive dismissal. The Council has to balance its duties towards its employee against the rights of any others affected by its decisions.


Council is asked to note that this paper is responding to a grievance and is recommending administrative actions to protect the employee. It is not about imposing sanctions on Cllr Brookes. Sanctions could only be imposed in accordance with the Localism Act 2011. This would be by means of referral to the RCC standards Monitoring Officer and the Police concerning the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.


Council is also asked to be mindful that as an employer, it has a duty of care towards its employees and has received advice from a number of independent experts aimed at lawfully implementing safeguards to protect the employee and reduce the risk of Council being the subject of a Personnel injury and a constructive dismissal claim.


The Employee’s grievance relates to a number of incidents which she claimed were deliberately instigated by Cllr Brookes and targeted at her. She informed the Grievance Hearing that the incidents began in July 2016 following an email the Employee sent to the Chair of the Council, in which she quoted comments made by Cllr Brookes.  These incidents have continued up to April 2017, and the Employee believes that they are all linked.  Consequently she submitted her Formal Grievance letter on the 19th May 2017. 


On 22 June 2017 Alison Jones carried out a Health and Safety Risk assessment This concludes that the employee’s risk factors are arising due to the working relationship between Cllr Brookes and the employee and that the situation cannot be ignored. It was therefore recommended that the following administrative arrangements should be put in place to reduce the ongoing risk:


1 Blocking the Councillor’s e-mail to the office and this e-mail to be dealt with by the Chairman and Vice Chairman so far as to allow the councillor to carry out  his duties as a member of Oakham Town Council.


2 Authorising the Clerk not to take the councillor’s telephone calls or answer the door if he presents himself at the office.


3 Removing the Councillor from Committees and Working Groups for an initial  period of 3 months where this would bring him into contact with Clerk. The purpose of this is that such contact could put the employee at risk of stress and anxiety.

Once these arrangements are in place, a review in 3 months is recommended to evaluate how effective these sanctions are in alleviating the difficulties experienced by the employee  and the impact they are having on the employee.


Amy Brown has advised that (1) and (2) above are arguably administrative steps designed to protect the employee. (3) above is more akin to a sanction. The employee’s union representative has taken legal advice from his union and argues that (3) is acceptable and that precedence exists with other Councils.


The Grievance panel convened a meeting on 11 July 2017. Council was represented by the aforementioned Grievance panel and Chris Moses. The employee was accompanied by Lionel Thatcher, the employee’s ALCC representative. 


The Chairman wrote to Cllr Brookes on 23 June and 3 July inviting him to both view the evidence to be presented at the hearing and to meet with the Panel to respond to the evidence. Cllr Brookes either declined or did not respond. On 11 July the Chairman e-mailed Cllr Brookes providing him with one more opportunity to meet with the Panel.  Cllr Brookes did not take this opportunity.


After listening to the evidence presented and due deliberation, the Grievance Panel unanimously agreed to uphold the grievance and endorse the recommendations as outlined in the stress Risk Assessment.


Recommendation


In order to meet Council’s legal obligations concerning Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and to reduce the risk of claims arising for Personnel Injury and  constructive dismissal, the following administrative steps are implemented with immediate effect: 

1. All e-mail sent by Cllr Brookes to the Clerk’s office are blocked and Cllr Brookes is advised to send his Council related e-mail to the Chairman. The Chairman and Vice Chairman will act as a filter between the Clerk’s office and Cllr Brookes.

2. The Clerk is instructed not to respond to incoming phone calls from Cllr Brookes. Cllr Brookes is advised to contact the Chairman or in his absence, the Vice Chairman with any urgent Council related business. The Chairman or Vice Chairman will determine whether it is urgent or could be dealt with by e-mail or letter.


3. The Clerk is instructed not to respond to any unarranged visits to the office by Councillor Brookes. Councillor Brookes is asked to make arrangements for any necessary visits with the Chairman who will, in consultation with the Clerk, arrange for himself or the Vice Chairman to be present during any such visit.


4. Before, during and immmediately after Council and Council Committtee meetings, the Clerk is accompanied by at least one other councillor whilst Cllr Brookes is present.


5. The effectiveness of these measures to be reviewed by the Staffing Committee after a period of 3 months. The Staffing Committee with advise Council if they are coinsidered to be effective or if not, what additional measures may be required to reduce the identified risks.



Cllr Haley and the staffing committee have produced a sheet of paper taking extracts from
my recent emails and use them as evidence for grounds to suspend my council email account.
Please not there is nothing offensive or threatening contained in any email I have sent.
It really is a shame the council does not put as much effort into serving our community as it does
attacking and attempting to exclude me from everything.

The Council led by Cllr Michael Haley is bullying and intimidating.


Appendix 2

Extracts from a few of the e-mails recently sent by Cllr Brookes, copied to all OTC Councillors and others, including the RCC Monitoring Officer and sometimes the local press and OTC’s H.R. Consultant.

Referring to the Clerk:
We need a clerk who is qualified and wants to do the job if we had that we would not ve in the mess we are

I know you object the word failing what other word should be used for the clerks many failings  perhaps deriliction of duty is.better. 

The clerk cant even complere two simple questions on the audit thud was descrubed as a significant failing of governance any decent organusstion would have acted then bur not otc  it poor clerk and nasty cllr brookes for asking that the job is done properly it stinks 

The clerk did looked at me as if i had fallen from the backside of one of her dogs walked past me pulling a face.This has got to stop.

I also believe the clerks conduct is unlawful. 

When I was out yesterday in a shop The Clerk once again stopped ignoring me but stopped to talk to the dog I am looking after. Do you not understand how this makes me feel. The Cl;erk is unbelievable rude towards me and it needs to stop. If she is not going to afford me basic manners by opening her mouth and just simply saying hello then  I would prefer it she does not stop and fuss the dog.

We need a clerk that is qualified and who is going to follow rules and not many daily requests made by cllr haley who thinks he runs this council

some members are guilty and the Clerk are guilty Spreading malicious rumours or gossip about me or my sexuality that is bullying.

Just walking flo in church passage Around the corner came alfie one of the clerks dogs not a lead. i am pleased to say the uncontrolled dog ignored me and flo and of course the clerks orders. Ruby i am pleased to say was on her lead pulling the clerk wanting to attack flo and me.Thank goodness for the lead. I have made it in one piece to the working group 

After last nights meeting I feel I am justified in my criticism of the clerk and Cllr Lowe competence and justified when I say the clerks and his continued conduct towards me is destructive 
The Clerks manner toward me and the total lack of respect is not acceptable and needs to stop and the same needs to apply to you and the deputy chair.

I popped to the office at 3pm it was closed it appeared both clerk and office assistant were absent and no lights on and blinds closed.
Why are we paying a fulltime clerk and a assistant if the office is frequently closed early and the phone goes unanswered when the public call.

If i see the office is closed before 5 again and not manned before 10 i will let all know so we can get this sorted the tax payer should not be paying for hours not worked

My biggest concern is Allison is going to head the same way as Richard over the last
few months her manner towards me has been worse than Alf Dewis, Adam Lowe, Joyce Lucas and Michael Haley put together

If the clerk and the old guard stopped in their attempt to exclude me then that would be a start. 

It is another failing by the office or the Cllr tasked with the lights project.

Referring to the Clerk and Chairman:
If you and the clerk did not constantly block my past agenda items then I might consider your suggestion worthwhile.

Once again the clerk and the Chairman of the committee exhibited publicly their 
determination to continue the campaign of hate against me. 

Referring to the Chairman:
Your constant inteference and exclusion of me is bullying please stol

you should resign as chairman before you cause any more destruction of this council.

Yes I agree he is an 'arse'

We have a chairman who behaves like a dictator and that is the fault of the council

Referring to other Councillors:
Cllr Lowe lied in past conduct complaints about me 

I agree with some one who said you had a chance to sort out the major bully cllr haley. Unfortunately you crumbled under his pressure. He win bullying me he is vile actually far worse than you

Dear Cllr Lucas 

Please kindly shut up,

You are very homophobic and you tell people I am peado, you are vile.
I have tolerated this homophobic bigot of a councillor for far too long and I will stand up to her and the 
old guard until it stops.

The council is a joke led by bullies



I think the Clerk and Oakham Town Council need to be reminded of this:



I was found not guilty at Leicester Magistrates Court on Monday (14 October 2013).

District Judge John Temperley said Brookes was not harassing Briggs by repeatedly emailing and blogging about her, just using his freedom of expression.

He also accepted Brookes had phoned and texted Haworth because he was trying to find out who was attacking him on a website which had been set up anonymously by the councilor.

Judge Temperley said: ‘Freedom of expression is an essential function of a democratic society. It is applicable also to those who offend and shock.

‘Some of the comment is harsh, shocking or personally offensive, but that does not mean it is criminal.’

Haworth had argued in the trial his attacks on Brookes on his Laughing Stocks website were satirical.

But Judge Temperley said: ‘I don’t agree. Some of the material goes way beyond satire. They are crude and crass and homophobic.’

And the judge said other claims made by Howarth against Brookes were ‘exaggerated’.


I feel once again the Clerk and the council are exaggerating and look forward to seeing
them in court once again.