Rutland County Council, Public Questions, Mr Mehra, New Statesman, Leicestershire Police, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Responses, Chief Executive, Mrs Briggs, Bevan Brittan LLP, Mr Keith-Lucas

Although my name is mentioned in the following questions, I did not request they be asked  I have not objected to them being asked.

Rutland County Council
Catmose Oakham Rutland LE15 6HP

Telephone 01572 722577 Facsimile 01572 758307 DX 28340 Oakham

TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTEENTH (Special) MEETING of the COUNCIL held in the Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham on Thursday 10 January 2013 at 7.00pm.

Questions received from Miss Helen Pender, Oakham

1) Re: Bevan Brittan Report, 16 November 2012, Appendix A. Introduction, Item 4:

“We have previously advised the Council in connection with statements made by Martin Brookes on his weblog …”

1. What previous advice has RCC, its officers or Councillors sought or received on Martin Brookes’ web publications?

The Chairman invited the Chief Executive of Rutland County Council, Mrs Briggs, to respond. 

Mrs Briggs responded “Advice was provided on the possible course of action relating to the Mr Brookes Blog on 25th May 2010”.* 1.

2.What other advice has the Council, its officers or Councillors sought or received on any other internet publications?

Mrs Briggs responded “None to my knowledge”.

3.

(a) Have letters been written to Private Eye or The Leicester Mercury? 

(b) If so, what was the cost of writing letters to these or any other publications?

Mrs Briggs responded “None on behalf of the Authority”.

4.

How much liaison, and with whom was the liaison conducted between RCC, its officers or Councillors and Leicestershire Police? What matters were raised?

Mrs Briggs responded “The Council liaises on a regular basis with Leicestershire Police in the normal course of business. Issues of concern in relation to Blogs have been discussed but only informally and no action has been requested”. 2.

5.

Did any Councillor on RCC seek to convict Martin Brookes with a Criminal ASBO?

Mrs Briggs responded “The Council has had no involvement in such action”. 3.

Miss Pender asked the following supplementary question:

I notice the caveat “none on behalf of the Authority”, which seems to connect you to someone connected to Council; has someone written to the Mercury?

Mrs Briggs responded “I can only answer on behalf of the Authority and that is the answer”.






my comments:

1. that advice cost the council £2385.00

2. So if no action was requested why did Inspector J Monks feel the need to 
take action?

3. Conservative Cabinet Member Councillor Gene Plews did, he claimed in
a rather fictitious police statement, I "have destroyed Oakham" and was part 
of a group made of 9 people made up of Town Councillors, The Mayor then 
Cllr Joyce Lucas and ex Mayor Paul Beech and their cronies, last  year, 
Class A bullying, I was not happy and neither were the CPS. 

2) Bevan Brittan has published an email from Cllr Richardson to Kim Sawyer dated 15 November 2012 in which he states:

2.The second disciplinary meeting (of Aman Mehra) was on 14 June 2012.

1.Who requested this meeting? Why?

2.Why would a disciplinary meeting be held with the erstwhile monitoring officer and compliance officer of RCC? Is this true?

3.If this meeting was held at the request of Mr Mehra it would suggest that he had severe reservations over compliance matters. Such reservations could not legally be said to breach employee post mortem confidentiality so:

a) Did Mr Mehra have any concerns over RCC compliance matters?

b) What were those concerns?


Mrs Briggs responded “Mr Mehra was the subject of an ongoing disciplinary investigation which had not concluded. The meeting which took place on 14th June 2012 related to that ongoing disciplinary investigation. The meeting was not held at the request of Mr Mehra”.

There was no supplementary question.

3) 

Bevan Brittan report, 16 November 2012, Appendix A. Introduction, Item 4 states:

“We have previously advised the Council ……”

Can this report be said to be independent when:

a) 

Bevan Brittan have clearly advised the Council on previous occasions?

b) 

I understand Bevan Brittan have failed to talk to Councillors Gale, Richardson and Wainwright when compiling this report. Can this be deemed wholly independent if Bevan Brittan have failed to ascertain the other half of the argument and case brought against these Councillors by RCC?

c) 

Since all liaison with Bevan Brittan only outlined RCC’s complaint was it not a complete waste of public monies?

Mrs Briggs responded “The report has been prepared by a nationally prominent firm of Solicitors instructed under normal client care conditions. The firm is independent of the Council. The only previous connection was through similarly arms-length instruction.

They were instructed to advise on the possible legal options which the Council might wish to consider, not to undertake a full investigation.”

Miss Pender asked the following supplementary question:

I understand that the legal correspondent on the New Statesman has contacted a local blogger, saying the advice is deeply suspect; why didn’t you contact a QC why a jobbing solicitor?

The Chairman invited the Local Government Partner, Bevan Brittan LLP, 

Mr Keith-Lucas to respond. 

Mr Keith-Lucas responded “Mr Green had contacted me to say that he intended to publish and he disagreed with the substance of the report. However, this could only be resolved in a court of law and that was the end of the discussion.”

Rutland County Council, Public Questions, Bevan Report, Anti Corruption Meeting, Tonight

Rutland County Council, Public Questions, Bevan Report, Anti Corruption Meeting, Tonight

I have been sent a list of questions that a member of the public has submitted to Rutland County Council
for this evenings Special Meeting at 7.00pm

I can answer point five: Yes Tory Councillor Gene Plews

The member of the public says if Rutland County Council refuse to answer the same
questions will be submitted under FOI

Question 1

Re: Bevan Brittain Report 16th November 2012

Appendix A. Itm 4:

"We have previously advised the council in connection with statements made by
Martin Brookes on his weblog..."

1. What previous advice has RCC, its officers or councillors sought or received on Martin
Brookes  web publications?

2 What other advice has the council its officers or councillors sought or received on any other
internet publication?

3 a. Have letters been written to  Private Eye or The Leicester Mercury?
b. If so, what was the cost of writing letters to these or any other publications?

4 How much liaison, and with whom was the liaison conducted, between RCC, its officers
or councillors and Leicestershire Police? what matters were raised?

5 Did any Councillor on RCC seek to convict Martin Brookes with a criminal ASBO?

Question 2

Bevan Brittan has published an email from Cllr Richardson to Kim Sawyer dated
15th November 2012 in which he states:

The second disciplinary meeting of Aman Mehra was on 14th June 2012

1. Who requested this meeting? Why/

2. Why would a disciplinary meeting be held with Jane Calcott - erstwjile monitoring officer and
compliance officer of RCC? is this true?

3. If this meeting was held at the request of  Mr Mehra it would suggest that he had severe reservations
over compliance matters. Such reservations could not legally be said to breach employee post mortem
confidentiality. So:

3. a, Did Mr Mehra have any concerns over RCC compliance matters?

3. b. What were those concerns?


Question 3

Bevan Brittan report, 16th November 2012

Appendix A. Introduction. Item 4 states.

"We have previously advised the Council...."

Can this report be said to be independent when:

a Bevan Brittan have clearly advised the council on previous occasions?

b. I understand Bevan Brittan have failed to talk to Councillors Gale, Richardson and Wainwright, when compiling this report, can this be deemed wholly independent if Bevan Brittan have failed to ascertain the
other half of the argument and case brough against these councillors by RCC?

c. Since all liaison with Bevan Brittan only outlined RCC's complaint was iit not a complete waste
of public monies?