Statement made by Cllr Nick Wainwright at Special Council Meeting (Kangaroo Court) on the 10th January 2013
The Bevan Brittan report, which form the basis for this meeting is in 2 parts.
The first is an academic report exploring a variety of theoretical scenarios whereby a Councillor's actions in requesting information may constitute harassment or defamation of a Council. It concludes with a list of 7 options for possible remedy by a council if this were to be proven and this forms the substantive part of the meeting tonight. It should be noted that there is no fact or evidence base for this section of the report and the report is liberally peppered with substantial inaccuracies. The author clearly states that the report was produced without review of the files handed to him by the Deputy Monitoring Officer. This Council voted to approve the preparation of the report on the 12th November 2012 and the report was completed on the 16th November, 4 days later.
The second Supplementary Report relates to the events leading to the suspension and tragic death of the Strategic Director of Places and the processes followed by the Council following his death. Members of the RAC requested that these processes be reviewed with the aim of avoiding a similar tragedy in the future. The Chief Executive, Leader and Deputy Monitoring Officer mistakenly believed that these requests for clarification of the processes in some way constituted a request for release of confidential information which it did not. This is, we believe clearly demonstrated in the correspondence attached to the Supplementary Report. We understand that the family of the director have made similar requests which have also been misconstrued as requesting confidential information.
Misunderstanding questions or mistaken interpretation seems to be quite common.
Members may recall the Standards Report commissioned by the Council's Deputy Monitoring Officer against the judgement of the 4 members and who specifically wrote to the Deputy Monitoring Officer stating that this was not in their opinion a Standards matter as it related to Suspicion of Fraud and not Member Conduct. The Leader and Deputy Leader regularly and mistakenly inform people that the cost of this report is attributable to the 4 members who raised the concern. The decision to commission the report was made by the Deputy Monitoring Officer with no reference to the Council.
I am not sure if Members have had sight of that report, but one word from the report which has been cherry picked and is quoted liberally and mischievously by the Leader, Deputy Leader and others both in meetings, correspondence to fellow Councillors and in the media. That word is 'reckless'. What you are not aware of unless you actually read the report is that the original concerns raised are in fact well founded and that there were a number of mistakes, made by officers, members and agents. The report states:
164. .... I consider that there was a misunderstanding in relation to the decision that had been made at the Cabinet meeting on 15 March 2011 which led officers and Councillors Begy and King to the view that the Cabinet had given approval to proceed with the collaboration agreement negotiations and joint marketing of sites 1 and 2.
166. I consider that the circumstances which arose were unfortunate and caused confusion for Councillors Richardson, Gale, Wainwright and Montgomery in understanding what had happened and led to some suspicions as to what might have occurred. I also understand how they may have gained the perception that deals had been done without following the proper processes.
This is a clear demonstration of how information can be manipulated to suit the outcome that is desired.
Contrary to the impression being promoted in the media, the questions that we have been asking are not trivial or time wasting. The information that we have requested relates to substantial expenditure of tax payers’ money and to the confirmation that the decision making process is fully compliant. Much of this information is still outstanding. Where information has been received, invariably though a Freedom of Information Request, the information received shows that the Council has not complied with the rules governing Local Authorities such as purchasing major assets before having formal valuation.
In another instance, following a 4 month email exchange Councillor Richardson was proved correct in that the End of Year Accounts had mistakenly recorded the disposal of some £3.8m of assets. This was eventually confirmed by the District Auditor and corrections made. Hardly a trivial amount.
We have done nothing more than to perform the duties of a County Councillor in representing those who elected us. We will continue to strive to do our duty to ensure that this Council is open and transparent in accordance with the directives demanded in the Localism Act 2011.
