City Council agreed to provide legal service for Rutland County Council at £170 an hour they did not
quite no what they were taking on. In all the years I have written to her she has never replied, I wonder if she charges to read and bin?
Refusal to accept Single Point of Contact
This is an indication of what we have to accept as Councillors. You will see in our previous Post reference the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) we sent an “Open Letter” to the Monitoring Officer, Mr Pook, sent on 15th January 2013, soon after the Special Council Meeting of 10th January 2013, when the SPOC was imposed on us without any justification by a Majority Political Group.
We received no reply and, given Mr Pook was away, it was referred to the Deputy Monitoring Officer, who also acts as the Legal Officer for the Council, Mrs Kim Sawyer. We have not received a reply from Mrs Sawyer either and have now received a letter from the Chief Executive, basically instructing us what we will and will not do, and advising us that:
Any emails sent by yourselves to Council Officers (including Peterborough City Council staff acting for RCC) will be automatically forwarded to the SPOC account.
This means that the Chief Executive has effectively determined we are not entitled to any independent Legal advice as Councillors, effectively denying us our fundamental rights as elected Councillors. Is this really how you expected or wished your Councillors to be treated, who are seeking to do nothing more than the best on behalf of their electorate?
We have now sent the following email today to Mrs Sawyer seeking advice:
From: David Richardson
Sent: 01 February 2013 15:10
To: Sawyer Kim
Cc: baroness.hanham@communities.gsi.gov.uk; David Allen Green (davidallengreen@newstatesman.co.uk); 'Nick (4Rutland)'; 'Richard (4Rutland)'
Subject: Single Point of Contact
Sent: 01 February 2013 15:10
To: Sawyer Kim
Cc: baroness.hanham@communities.gsi.gov.uk; David Allen Green (davidallengreen@newstatesman.co.uk); 'Nick (4Rutland)'; 'Richard (4Rutland)'
Subject: Single Point of Contact
Dear Mrs Sawyer,
I write again reference the Single Point of Contact. We have this week received a letter from the Chief Executive, Mrs Briggs, reference this.
We wrote to Mr Pook seeking a legal opinion on this and, in his absence, referred it to you, we have to date received no reply.
We wish to make it absolutely clear that we do not accept or acknowledge the imposition of a Single Point of Contact on us. Furthermore , we have made it absolutely clear that neither we will accept the Chief Executive acting in that capacity. We also made it absolutely clear in our email that we do not accept a Kangaroo Court with a Majority Political Group being allowed to impose and impede, on a Minority Political Group the ability to go about its business and duty, in line with the statutory rights as duly elected Councillors.
As far as we are concerned the Chief Executive is acting outside of her remit and is now, to all intent and purposes, compliantly working with the Majority Political Group against us, as we have felt since we were elected, if not before given the way the Chief Executive acted as the Returning Officer in my count. The fact that we cannot obtain any ruling or support from Mr Pook, as the Monitoring Officer, and yourself, as the Legal Officer of the Council, means that, as far as we are concerned, you are also working in an overly-compliant manner with the Majority Political Group, since we are being deliberately obstructed from doing our duty as elected Councillors, we believe you both sit in an independent capacity to ensure fair play and that the law is upheld and, to that end, we should be given the support due to us. You cannot and should not, as far as we are concerned, hide behind this ridiculous Single Point of Contact.
We have been found guilty of nothing. We have not been tried. We have had no case put to us. We have not been reported to the Standards Committee. We have had no opportunity to give our side of the situation. At no stage has the Chief Executive ever come to us and outlined where there may be a problem, despite our asking to be advised if there was in any matter of concern, no matter how small. We have constantly been obstructed from doing our job as Councillors. We have had to endure the most defamatory accusations made in a public forum with a Chairman, also a Member of the Majority Political Group, incapable of acting in that capacity to ensure fair play and with a Monitoring Officer appearing to give no legal advice to the Chairman in order to prevent such defamatory statements being made. We have yet to hear whether the Chief Executive had a declaration of interest to declare. We have yet to receive a reply on the role of Bevan-Brittan in that meeting. We have yet to be advised how the Chief Executive, as one of the main complainants of harassment, could be allowed to be the Officer made responsible to carry out an investigation against us. We have a serious complaint that has been submitted against a Member that the Monitoring Officer has not dealt with or reported back to us, along with many other legitimate complaints and concerns that have been put to him. We have been restricted and obstructed from carrying out our duties as Councillors by misuse of the GCSX system, which, even now, is still being used as an excuse to deny us information we have requested in a perfectly legitimate manner. We have been denied information and access to information through a liberal interpretation of the rules and law. We have been denied our request to see the Compliance Officer. Just about everything is an act of obstruction in allowing us to do our duty as Councillors.
We are now seeking an opinion from the Department for Local Government, the Local Government Association, the Law Society and others. What we need is a proper Legal opinion from yourself in this matter and/or Mr Pook with immediate effect, the longer this is delayed the longer we are denied doing our job as Councillors effectively.
We would also draw your attention to the fact that we do not appreciate the tone of the letter we have received from the Chief Executive, we are not the employees of the Chief Executive and therefore do not expect to receive letters treating us such. We will not accept being told by the Chief Executive in this manner what we must and have to do, we would remind the Chief Executive and all Officers that they sit in an apolitical position, to that end we expect the due respect we are entitled, just as we will give due respect to the Officers as they are entitled. We have upheld at all times the clear blue line between Councillor and Officer as required in the Code of Conduct.
We look forward to your legal opinion and judgement on this as soon as possible to avoid further complications and obstruction in us doing our job as Councillors.
Yours sincerely,
Councillor D.Richardson
P.S. We will be publishing this on our website for the public to be made aware of the situation and how we are being obstructed in doing our duty as Councillors on their behalf.
From: David Richardson
Sent: 23 January 2013 17:48
To: Sawyer Kim
Cc: 'Nick (4Rutland)'; 'Richard (4Rutland)'
Subject: FW: Single Point of Contact at Rutland County Council - Objection
Sent: 23 January 2013 17:48
To: Sawyer Kim
Cc: 'Nick (4Rutland)'; 'Richard (4Rutland)'
Subject: FW: Single Point of Contact at Rutland County Council - Objection
Dear Mrs Sawyer,
I write in your capacity as the Deputy Monitoring Officer and refer you to the email below which was sent to Mr Pook as Monitoring Officer. We have not received a reply from Mr Pook, as indeed we await a substantial amount of feedback from him on other matters as well, however, we are informed that Mr Pook is now on leave for 2 weeks and therefore duly refer the matter to you.
You will see from the email below that we do not accept the imposition of a Single Point of Contact on our Group. Furthermore, under no circumstance will we accept the Chief Executive acting in that capacity. We have had to endure nothing more than a Kangaroo Court without a single case being made against us or being taken forward for consideration by an independent Court.
You will no doubt now be aware of the ruling of the House of Lords on this matter who have judged the advice given by Bevan-Brittan to be wrong. As far as we are concerned that overturns any ruling or judgement made by Rutland Council upon us, including the imposition of any Single Point of Contact, which as far as we are concerned goes against our fundamental rights as Councillors, as outlined in the email below.
We now need proper Legal advice on this matter as soon as possible. It is we, as Councillors, who have had to suffer the public defamation and humiliation in the Special Council Meeting and in the months before that as well, without any substantive case being brought against us, without any attempt by the Chief Executive to engage with us or even suggest there was a problem or in what way there was a problem, this is despite us writing on several occasions asking we be made aware of any such problem, including writing to the Leader of the Council. By any reasonable consideration we have not been treated fairly and we have been much maligned, furthermore, we have not been given fair representation or opportunity to defend our own reputation.
The Single Point of Contact, as far as we are concerned, goes beyond any remit of the Chief Executive and denies all our rights as Councillors and as a Political group. What we have at stake is the whole principle of democracy in this Country. We are the elected Councillors and the Chief Executive is the employee of those Councillors.
Would you please, now give this your immediate attention and advise us on the law in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Councillor D.Richardson
