Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
Report to Rutland County Council
Rutland Anti-Corruption Party
Supplemental Report
Introduction
1
This report is supplemental to our report of 16 November 2012.
2
In Paragraphs 19 and 20 of that report we referred to the limitations to Councillor’s “Need to Know”, and that excessive demands for information can amount to harassment. Our attention has now been drawn to an exchange of correspondence between Councillor Richardson and Kim Sawyer, Deputy Monitoring Officer, in respect of the death of Mr. Mehra, a Director of the Council.
Summary of Facts
3
The following information has been provided by the Council and is in the public domain –
3.1
Aman Mehra, the Council's Strategic Director for Places was suspended from duty by the Chief Executive on Friday 15th June 2012 to enable a disciplinary investigation to be undertaken. Following his suspension, Council staff were advised that Aman Mehra would be absent from work for an indefinite period of time. This Council's Employment Solicitor has confirmed that this process of suspension was conducted in accordance with the Council's approved procedures;
3.2
Later on 15 June, Aman Mehra took his own life. The Council's disciplinary investigation was terminated and the matter was placed in the hands of the Coroner, who was provided with access to all relevant Council records and materials;
3.3
On Monday 18th June 2012, the Chief Executive advised all Council staff of Aman Mehra's death;
3.4
Following the inquest, the Coroner confirmed that Aman Mehra had taken his own life and that there was no evidence that the Council's disciplinary inquiry was other than appropriate;
3.5
Following the inquest Aman Mehra's widow was provided with her husband's employment record as next of kin and requested the Council for absolute discretion, and that no information relating to his employment record be disclosed to anyone else, under any circumstances;
3.6
Also following the inquest, the Chief Executive met Aman Mehra's sister and father at the Coroner's request;
3.7
Since then, the Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive have remained in touch with Aman Mehra's widow to offer continuing support in the face of speculative blog postings and media articles. The Council has respected her right to confidentiality and has declined to provide any additional information relating to Aman Mehra's employment to any person.
4
In answer to a member’s question, the Deputy Chief Executive informed Council at its meeting on 12th September 2012 that the Council’s Employment Solicitor had confirmed
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
that, to the best of her knowledge, the Council had acted in accordance with its approved personnel and disciplinary procedures. Councillor Richardson was present at that meeting.
5
Following these events, the Chief Executive received several requests from members of the Council for disclosure of Mr. Mehra’s employment records. In response to these enquiries, Kim Sawyer as the Council’s Head of Legal Services sent an Advice Note to all Councillors on 30 September 2012 setting out why the Council could not disclose Mr. Mehra’s employment records to Councillors. A copy of this Advice Note is attached at Appendix A to this Supplemental Report.
6
On 1 October 2012, Councillor Gale emailed to the Chief Executive with copies to all Councillors, saying that members of the RAC Group had been contacted by and had met members of Aman Mehra’s family. He suggested that there was a conflict between an email from the Deputy Chief Executive stating that the family did not want to take the matter further and wanted no further contact from the Council and an assertion by members of the family to the RAC members. He asked –
6.1
In what circumstances the Deputy Chief Executive had made her statement;
6.2
Had there been some form of agreement (presumably between the family and the authority);
6.3
Had some form of compensation been agreed;
6.4
What was so serious for a senior officer to be suspended for an indefinite period on full pay and that could not be disclosed to Councillors at the time.
7
The Chief Executive responded, copies to all Councillors, on 1 October 2012 to say that –
7.1
the Council had engaged extensively with Aman Mehra’s widow, and with other members of his family;
7.2
it was her discretion as to whether information relating to Mr. Mehra’s employment and suspension be disclosed to other members of his family;
7.3
he had already been informed that the Council’s Monitoring Officer, Legal Advisor, the Police and the Coroner had all indicated that they were satisfied that the Council had provided all appropriate information;
7.4
that the Council’s Monitoring Officer and Legal Officer had confirmed that the Council’s actions were appropriate and in accordance with the Council’s procedures;
7.5
and that she would not be answering his specific questions as they were insensitive and inappropriate.
She went on to say that she felt that his questions contained personal and insulting allegations against herself, likely to cause distress.
8
Also on 1 October 2012, Councillor Begy replied to Councillor Gale. He confirmed that no comment would be made without the consent of Aman Mehra’s next of kin, and confirmed that she, and the Police and Coroner, had been informed of all information held by the Council. He stated that there was no conspiracy or cover up, but that Aman Mehra’s widow did not want the information disclosed. He sought Councillor Gale’s assurance that he was not seeking to make political capital out of this event.
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
9
Councillor Gale replied to the Chief Executive, copies to all Councillors, on 1 October 2012 to say that he made no allegations against the Chief Executive personally or professionally, but that he believed that his questions were appropriate and that he felt that he had a responsibility as a Councillor to ask questions to satisfy himself that all was in order and that he would continue to seek a clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the suspension of Aman Mehra and what followed.
10
The Chief Executive replied on 8 October 2012, copies to all Councillors, as follows –
“I will repeat again. The information you are seeking cannot be released, on legal advice, and I view your continued probing as threatening to me personally and professionally. Further requests asking me to release this information could be interpreted as harassment and I will seek legal advice if this takes place.”
11
On 12 October, Councillor Richardson emailed to Councillor Begy, copies to all Councillors referring to Councillor Begy’s reply to Councillor Gale and with a long list of questions relating to this matter. Councillor Richardson’s Email is set out at Appendix B to this report.
12
On 3 October, the Chief Executive had emailed to Aman Mehra’s sister advising her that she was not aware of a request from the family, as reported by Councillor Gale, that the family did not want further contact from the Council. She then confirmed that in respect of any disclosure of sensitive and confidential information, she was bound by the wishes of Aman Mehra’s widow. Aman Mehra’s sister responded to the Chief Executive, copying in Councillor Gale, on 12 October 2012, saying that she was disappointed with this advice and asking a number of questions relating to Aman Mehra’s employment and suspension and asking for an independent inquiry. Councillor Gale copied this email to all Councillors on 15 October, stating that he had asked all Councillors for the subject to be investigated but that request had been refused, and asking whether Councillors wished to “reconsider or give the reasons for total silence because so far that reasoning is too flimsy and open to challenge.”
13
On 15 November 2012, Councillor Richardson emailed to Kim Sawyer requesting information relating to the Council’s handling of Mr. Mehra’s disciplinary investigation and suspension. Councillor Richardson’s email is attached as Appendix C to this Supplemental Report. Councillor Richardson followed up his email with email requests for a substantive response on 26 November and 12 December 2012. On 18 December, the Head of Legal Services replied that an assurance was given at the Council meeting in September that in the opinion of the Council’s employment lawyer all proper employment procedures had been followed, and that it would not be appropriate for her to discuss confidential employment issues with Councillor Richardson for the reasons set out in her advice of the 30 October sent to all Councillors.
Analysis
14
Councillors Richardson and Gale have been advised repeatedly that the conduct of the Chief Executive and other officers of the Council in responding to the disciplinary issues relating to Aman Mehra and suspending him complied with the Council’s approved procedures, both by verbal assurance at full Council on 12 September and in subsequent correspondence. That has been confirmed by the statement of the Coroner that there
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
was no evidence that the Council's disciplinary inquiry was other than appropriate. Despite this, they continue to question publicly whether the conduct of Council officers, and particularly the Chief Executive, complied with Council procedures.
15
Councillors Richardson and Councillor Gale have been advised repeatedly, in correspondence and in the Head of Legal Services’ Advice Note to all Councillors, that the Council cannot disclose personal information relating to Aman Mehra’s employment or suspension without the consent of Aman Mehra’s widow as his next of kin. Despite this repeated advice, they continue to request the Chief Executive particularly for disclosure of personal information relating to his employment and suspension, challenging the authority of the Chief Executive in refusing to provide that information.
16
Despite being advised repeatedly that the decision of Amna Mehra’s widow must prevail, Councillors Gale and Richardson have continued to champion the requests of his sister and family for disclosure of personal information relating to his employment and suspension.
17
Councillors Gale and Richardson have raised the matter in open Council and sought an investigation. That request has been rejected by a majority of Council.
18
Councillors Gale and Richardson have been advised by the Chief Executive that she feels that their repeated questioning of her advice and her decision not to disclose personal information relating to Aman Mehra’s employment and suspension without the consent of his widow is a challenge to her personal and professional integrity and constituted harassment. Despite this, they have continued publicly to challenge her advice and decision.
19
Councillors Gale and Richardson are aware that matters relating to employment of staff are delegated to the Employment and Appeals Committee. Councillor Wainwright, who is the third member of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Party, is a member of that Committee. As the Head of Legal Services has explained in her advice note, Councillors Gale and Richardson, not being members of that Committee, have no common law “need-to-know” in respect of employment matters. If the RACP have genuine concerns about the conduct of the Chief Executive and other officers, there is a proper course of action which is for Councillor Wainwright to move that the Committee request the Chief Executive to account to the Committee for her conduct and the conduct of other officers, which process can be conducted in private session.
20
Taking Councillor Richardson’s email of 15 November 2012, the questions which he poses under Items 1, 2 and 3 clearly seek the disclosure of personal information relating to Aman Mehra’s employment and suspension, which Councillor Richardson has been told repeatedly that the Council cannot disclose without the consent of his widow. The questions under Items 4 and 5 relate to the conduct of officers and particularly the Chief Executive following Aman Mehra’s death, and the appropriate course is via Employment and Appeals Committee
21
I am of the opinion that the conduct of Councillors Gale and Richardson in this matter has long passed the point of reasonableness and amounts to harassment of the Chief Executive and of other officers, and has gone beyond the point of mere questioning to the
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
point of defamation of the Chief Executive, of other officers and of the authority. In giving this opinion, I have particular regard to the following –
21.1
Councillors Gale and Richardson’s persistence in questioning the conduct of the Chief Executive and other officers and in challenging the Chief Executive’s advice and decision that she cannot disclose personal information relating to Aman Mehra’s employment and suspension without his widow’s consent, long after they have been advised that she considers their conduct to amount to harassment;
21.2
their failure to use the proper channels for questioning the conduct of officers;
21.3
the public manner in which they have conducted a concerted campaign, even to the point of holding demonstrations on the highway near the Council’s offices, displaying placards relating to this matter.
Peter Keith-Lucas
Local Government Partner
For Bevan Brittan LLP
19th December 2012.
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
Appendix A
Head of Legal Services Advice Note to all Councillors
Advice on disclosure of employment records
I am asked to advise the Chief Executive about disclosure of employment records relating to Aman Mehra, a former Director of Rutland County Council.
Aman Mehra passed away on 15 June 2012. He had been the subject of an internal investigation as part of the Council’s process for instigating disciplinary proceedings. As a result of information that came to light during the investigation Aman was suspended. A coroner’s inquest was held and concluded that Aman had committed suicide.
Aman’s next of kin, his wife, was given all relevant information regarding his employment with the Council. As this information related to Aman’s employment it was considered to be sensitive personal information and because of the nature of allegations that information was also considered to be confidential.
Aman’s wife asked for that information to remain confidential and for the Council and the Coroner not to disclose information relating to the investigation process.
The Chief Executive has been advised that in agreeing to that request the Council has entered into a duty of confidence with Mrs Mehra. The duty of confidence is a legal relationship and as such the disclosure of any information could amount to breach of that duty for which Court action can be brought. Therefore the Chief Executive has been advised that there should be no disclosure of Aman’s employment records.
Several requests have been made by members of the Council for disclosure of the employment records. Requests have also been made by Aman’s family, not the next of kin, but close relatives for disclosure of that information.
This advice sets out the relevant issues and clarifies the advice given to the Chief Executive.
The issues for consideration are:
(1)
Why is this information confidential?
(2)
Can a deceased’s information remain confidential after death?
(3)
Who has the right to a deceased’s information after his death?
(4)
What are the rights of the wider family?
(5)
What are the rights of Councillors to access confidential information?
Confidential information
Generally information which is obtained during the course of employment is confidential. For most employees, information that is given to the employer is personal data which is subject to
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
protection by the Data Protection Act 1988. This means that the employer cannot disclose that data without complying with the requirements of the Act.
The protection of personal data under the Act however only applies to living individuals. But it does not automatically follow therefore that the Council can disclose personal information relating to a deceased employee. If the information is no longer protected by the Data Protection Act, the Council has to consider whether information obtained during employment is protected by a duty of confidence owed by the employer to the former employee or to those entitled to the deceased’s information after death.
The duty of confidence arises if two circumstances exist:
•
The information is confidential in nature – this means something which is not public property or public knowledge" (Saltman Engineering Co Limited v Campbell Engineering Co Limited [1948]); and
•
It is disclosed "in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence" (Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Limited [1969)
There is no doubt that the relationship between employer and employee creates an expectation that the employer will keep the employees records confidential. It is reasonable for an employee to expect that any information given by them during the course of an investigation under the disciplinary process will be treated confidentially, unless and until the public interest in revealing that information supersedes the employee’s personal interest. That part of the process is reached when the employer or the employee makes a decision to terminate the employment and/or exercise a right of appeal, in the public domain, about the reason for termination.
In this case, Aman passed away before the disciplinary process had been complete. This means that his records contain allegations which cannot now be fully investigated and, more importantly, against which he has no right of reply. The investigatory process was not public knowledge until the announcement of his suspension was made. Even then no particular details of the disciplinary process or the reasons for suspension were made public. It is clear that an obligation of confidence regarding the disciplinary process existed on the date of Aman’s death.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that as this information was imparted with an expectation of confidentiality that a duty of confidence was therefore owed to Aman.
(b) Does that duty survive beyond death?
There is no binding authority on whether the duty of confidentiality can survive the death of the deceased but it is likely that it does. In a case heard by the Information Tribunal (Bluck v
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
Information Commissioner) the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Information Commissioner refusing to disclose medical records of a deceased patient to her mother.
The mother had made a request for the hospital records following the death of her daughter but that request was refused. The records had been released to the daughter’s next of kin who had been consulted by the hospital about whether the next of kin would consent to release of the records. The next of kin asked that the papers remain confidential.
The Information Commissioner was of the view that the duty of confidentiality to the deceased survived her death and that the only person able to bring an action for breach of confidentiality was the next of kin. Therefore the next of kin was the only person to whom the records could be disclosed.
(c) Is there a right of disclosure to other parties?
There are obviously many similarities between the Bluck case and the circumstances of Aman’s case. A duty of confidentiality is said to exist, there has been disclosure of documents to the next of kin and the next of kin has asked that the confidentiality of those records be respected.
There is authority therefore to refuse to release documents to the next of kin. But what about Councillors? Do Councillors have a general right to inspect Council documents?
The legal rights of Councillors to inspect Council documents are covered partly within statute and partly by the common law. Councillors have a statutory right to inspect any Council document, which contains material relating to any business, which is to be transacted at a Council, Committee or Sub-Committee meeting. This right applies irrespective of whether the Councillor is a member of the Committee or Sub-Committee concerned and extends not only to reports, which are to be submitted to the meeting, but also to any relevant background papers.
This right does not however apply to documents which are not to be considered at Council, Committee or Sub-Committee or which may appear in the confidential section of the agenda for meetings.
Within a local authority it is the Chief Executive who has responsibility for the administration of staffing matters (other than senior management reorganisation) and individual staffing matters are generally not the subject of a Council report unless the staff member chooses to exercise a right of appeal to the Employment Committee.
Reports which contain exempt information relating to Councillors, employees, occupiers of Council property, applicants for grants and other services, the care of children, contract and industrial relations negotiations, advice from Counsel and criminal investigations are generally restricted to only certain members.
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
The common law right of Councillors is much broader and is based on the principle that any Councillor has a prima facie right to inspect Council documents so far as his/her access to the document is reasonably necessary to enable the member properly to perform his/her duties as a member of the Council. This principle is commonly referred to as the "need to know" principle.
The exercise of this common law right depends upon the Councillor’s ability to demonstrate that he/she has the necessary "need to know". In this respect a Councillor has no right to "a roving commission" to go and examine documents of the Council. The crucial question is the determination of the "need to know."
In some circumstances a Councillor’s "need to know" will normally be presumed. In other circumstances where the information is personal or sensitive a Councillor will be expected to justify the request in specific terms.
How does this relate to Aman’s records? These records are not subject to general inspection by all Councillors. They are confidential employment records which in the ordinary course of Council business would not come before Councillors for their information or decision. As discussed earlier, the confidentiality of these records does not cease as a result of Aman’s death and therefore any Councillor who wishes to inspect these records must demonstrate a ‘need to know’. Given the very sensitive nature of these records and that any breach of the duty of confidence is actionable in a court, the need to know must demonstrate very sound reasons for release of the documentation.
Not only is there no evidence of any reasons justifying release of these document, it is also noted that those Councillors who are calling for the release of the documents are doing so on behalf of the wider family. It has already been established that without the consent of the next of kin, the wider family has no right to inspection of the documents (as above).
For this reason I have therefore advised the Chief Executive that she should not consent to release of the records to those members. To do so would put the Council at risk of challenge.
To summarise therefore:
(1)
the employment records are confidential and sensitive
(2)
the records can only be released to next of kin
(3)
without consent of the next of kin they cannot be released to the wider family
(4)
without demonstration of the ‘need to know’ the information should not be released to those councillors requesting it
(5)
it is not likely that the ‘need to know’ can be justified where the councillors are representing the views of the wider family
(6)
release of confidential papers without the consent of the next of kin is likely to be actionable breach of the duty of confidence
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
Kim Sawyer
Head of Legal Services
Peterborough and Rutland Councils
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
Appendix B
Councillor Richardson’s Email to Councillor Begy
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
Appendix C
Councillor Richardson’s Email to the Head of Legal Services
From: David Richardson Sent: 15 November 2012 18:16 To: Sawyer Kim Cc: 'Nick (4Rutland)'; 'Richard (4Rutland)' Subject: Review of procedure - Mr Mehra
Dear Mrs Sawyer,
I write on behalf of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group reference your document forwarded to us about “advice on disclosure of employment records”. Your reply raises two important issues and I will deal with the first in this email, namely that of disclosure of employment records.
It appears that you have perhaps misunderstood the requests that have been made by our Group. What we have sought is nothing more than confirmation that all due process has been followed in this case. Quite clearly the consequence of this case was most serious, since it resulted in someone taking their own life. In our opinion, it is incumbent that Rutland Council reviews the matter fully to ascertain that all care was taken to ensure that such a consequence, as far as was possible, did not occur. We know there are strict guidance rules for such disciplinary matters that may result in a suspension. In fact the law has changed recently to be far more in favour of the employee and is quite specific about “kneejerk” reactions and suspension, for very good reason. It is essential that we are clear what occurred since the Council can be liable if a “kneejerk” suspension reaction occurred and this can result in a claim for (constructive) unfair dismissal and a rather large payout if the employer is found liable. In any suspension the employer should be able to demonstrate that they have given careful consideration as to: The necessity of suspending the employee; The impact of not suspending the employee on its business ; The impact on the employee’s health and career of any suspension. I am sure you will appreciate the implication of the last consideration.
This is very different from requesting disclosure of employment records, although they may have to be considered if it is found that due process for suspension was not followed, since one would have to understand the exact grounds for the course of action that was indeed taken. The Coroner clearly stated that the death was “work related”, one has to ascertain in what way and that it was not as a consequence of the actions taken.
Your document already throws a conflicting version of events. You state that:
“Aman Mehra passed away on 15 June 2012. He had been the subject of an internal investigation as part of the Council’s process for instigating disciplinary proceedings. As a result of information that came to light during the investigation Aman was suspended.”
You state it was “an internal investigation”, yet we have been informed in an email to “All Staff and Councillors” from the Chief Executive, dated 20th August 2012, that: “The disciplinary investigation was conducted by an independent body.” Was this an internal investigation or one carried out by an
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
independent external body? If it was carried out by an independent body then I believe we as Councillors have a right to know who this body was and the cost thereof?
I am sure you will appreciate that many of the facts and information suggested by relatives appear to be in conflict with the disciplinary procedure requirements, it is imperative that these are reviewed to ensure all compliance has been exacted and that everyone can be fully reassured of such, especially, again, given the severe and most sad outcome, no doubt many with Hillsborough felt the same.
We have stated, as Councillors, that there should be a full review of this matter. When a previous Director of this Council suggests there is a “cover up” at the Inquest along with the relatives, we, along with these people, need assurance that there most certainly has not been and that requires a full review of the matter, to ensure due process was properly ensured.
It is essential, therefore, that we understand what Rutland Council did as follows:
1.
Given the first disciplinary was 22nd March 2012. We are told by relatives this concerns expense claims.
•
What format did this take?
•
Who was present?
•
Who acted as an independent witness?
•
What recommendations were made and what action was taken? Etc.?
•
What relevance did this disciplinary have to the subsequent suspension and why was it raised, since the papers for this were with Mr Mehra?
2.
The second disciplinary meeting was on 14th June 2012. We are told by the relatives that this concerns inappropriate use of emails. This raises certain questions immediately.
•
First, it is completely different from the first disciplinary, was this a first warning?
•
Was this of such a serious nature that it required suspension the following day? These questions have to be asked and clarified, since the Leader of the Council has stated the suspension was not to do with work or of a criminal nature.
•
How long did this meeting take and who was present? The relatives are concerned that, given the meeting took place at 2.00p.m. Mr Mehra did not arrive home until 8.00p.m.
•
Was Mr Mehra given any indication of what this might lead to, since quite clearly he gave no indication to his relatives or his family that there was anything that was of such a serious nature that it might result in an immediate suspension the next day?
•
Mr Mehra stated to his relatives that he was locked out of the Council computer system on the Thursday evening, was he locked out and if so on what grounds?
•
Was a decision taken on the Thursday for suspension and if so by whom?
•
Given the timescales would it not have been more appropriate to have advised Mr Mehra not to come into work on the Friday whilst matters were being considered, giving more time to ensure all correct procedure would be followed?
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
3.
We are informed by the relatives that the meeting which resulted in the suspension of Mr Mehra was only with the Chief Executive.
•
Surely for a suspension there has to be independent witnesses, experts from HR and an opportunity for Mr Mehra to have an independent witness, so how can the Chief Executive possibly have taken a decision such as this independently?
•
Did the Chief Executive meet with the Leader of the Council or Deputy Leader first to discuss the matter?
•
Did the Chief Executive seek any legal advice before taking such a decision or had there been a recommendation for suspension from Peterborough?
•
Why did this suspension have to take place immediately on the Friday, why could it not have been left over the weekend until the Monday?
•
Why was it of such a serious nature that it had to be an immediate suspension?
•
Why was Mr Mehra made to empty the contents of his desk immediately and escorted to his car by the Chief Executive, especially when Mr Mehra was suspended on full pay and when this was pending the outcome of an investigation that had not been concluded?
•
Why did the Chief Executive send such an informal email to “All Staff”, late Friday afternoon after the suspension? What legal advice was given to the Chief Executive about informing all concerned, which includes Councillors who were never informed?
4.
There is then the handling the subsequent negotiations with relatives.
•
Why were the Chief Executive and the Deputy Chief Executive the sole personnel to meet and negotiate with Mr Mehra’s wife, step-father and relatives?
•
What record has been kept of those meetings?
•
What negotiations took place?
•
The relatives feel there has been some form of settlement, if so what and on whose authority?
Observation: One would expect in all sensitive issues such as this that a professional team, who know how to handle such matters and the strict legal requirements, would be brought in to deal with the matter. When the Chief Executive has been so closely involved in the suspension it is totally inappropriate and insensitive for that person to be liaising so closely with the family and relatives. We do not understand how this has been left solely in the hands of the Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive, who were also the representatives at the inquest. It needs clarifying if the Deputy Chief Executive had a role in the suspension and why it was determined that the Deputy Chief Executive was the only other person to be involved thereafter, especially when the Deputy Chief Executive has no legal background, one might understand someone from Peterborough Legal Department or maybe the Monitoring Officer and one would certainly have expected someone from HR as well.
5.
Recent involvement by Chief executive.
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
•
Why, when it was indicated to Council that the relatives had asked to speak to us reference this matter, did the Chief Executive take it upon herself to email the sister of Mr Mehra?
•
Why was this not done by legal or HR?
•
Why did the Chief Executive then feel it necessary and so important to text Mr Mehra’s sister on a Saturday evening to see if she had received the email?
Observation: This was all most insensitive and inappropriate. Mr Mehra and his sister were quite clearly very close and this has been deeply distressing for his sister, particularly when she feels the Chief Executive is responsible for the action taken by her brother. There cannot be anything worse, therefore, than to receive a text reference this tragic case on a Saturday evening when one is at home with one’s family, from the Chief Executive who is directly linked to the matter, just how insensitive is this? This raises a number of questions.
•
Did the Chief Executive seek legal or HR opinion before sending the email to Mr Mehra’s sister and then a subsequent text?
Observation: We have to agree with Mr Mehra’s sister that we are astonished that the Chief Executive would take such an insensitive and thoughtless action. The question has to be, therefore, why is the Chief Executive taking such a close and active personal involvement in this matter, it goes against all correct procedure and principals in such a case?
One also has to know just where legal and HR sit in all this, since their involvement appears to be minimal. Have Legal or HR given, or not given, advice on the appropriate course of action in this matter and if so, what has been that advice? We cannot believe that legal and HR have just stood back and allowed the Chief Executive to act in what appears to be a totally independent manner, effectively allowing the Chief Executive to be the sole negotiator with no proper independent witnesses or record.
Would you be good enough to now look into this matter and start to answer these questions in order that everyone can be fully satisfied that all due process and legal procedure was followed. As stated, this is not about seeking personal details, it is about making sure everything has been done strictly in accordance with best practice and that all due care was taken to ensure that, as far as possible, there was not this tragic outcome.
This is only reasonable given the circumstance. Furthermore, it is essential for the relatives to have complete closure in this matter for their own peace of mind, since, until that is done, they feel somewhat responsible for what happened and that is most certainly not fair on them.
Yours sincerely,
Councillor D.Richardson
On behalf of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Party
Appendix B
to Report No.13/2013
Given the fact that we do not use the GCSX system at home, would you please send any reply hard copy to myself and a further copy through the GCSX email system to Councillor Gale.
