A final response to Robin Pitt
Over the past few months Cllr Robin Pitt has made a series of complaints and allegations against an officer of Copeland Council and just about every prominent Conservative in sight.
Not one of those complaints was upheld: as he admitted in the debate on the no confidence motion which was moved against him yesterday, he had no proof to back any of them up.
It is perhaps worth explaining that the justification for moving a motion of no confidence against Cllr Pitt as Chair of Copeland Council's personnel panel is that someone who makes allegations of misconduct against a member of staff for which which he can provide no evidence may not be the ideal person to act as impartial chairman of a body which looks after the interests of council staff.
The debate was an example of the kind of politics in which grown adults act like badly behaved adolescents, and which puts so many people off politics.
For example, before the debate was guillotined, Cllr Pitt repeated a demand that the Leader of the Conservative Group apologise for saying that his (Cllr Pitt's) allegations were untrue.
Councillor Pitt demanded this apology on the basis that the council's standards committee had not dismissed his complaints because his allegations were proven to be untrue, but because that there was no corroborative evidence to prove them.
Honestly, how are you supposed to prove a negative statement, e.g. that something never happened?
Because of a clash of dates I had left the previous council meeting shortly before the speeches concerned, but I am advised that Councillor Moore sees no cause to apologise because he was expressing his own opinion that Pitt's allegations were untrue, not claiming that the Standards Committee has used that form of words.
As it happens, I had written an article on this blog on Tuesday 13th June 2006, long before Councillor Pitt had been elected to Copeland Council or turned to the dark side, let alone made the allegations he put forward this year. In an article entitled "Time to rethink the ethics rules" I made a number of suggestions about the Code of Local Government conduct designed to ensure that enforcing high ethical standards does not stop councillors from doing the job they were entitled to do.
That post contained several comments about the rights of people who are accused of misconduct, and concerning what should be done to people who make such allegations when they cannot produce any evidence to back them up.
So the following comments, written at a time when I could not possibly have known what allegations Cllr Pitt would make three years later, seem particularly relevant to yesterday's debate.
"Councillors accused of misconduct should be entitled to the same right which the criminal law gives to everyone else – to be considered innocent until proven guilty. If a complaint is made and no material evidence is produced to support it, or an investigation does not establish any wrongdoing or breach of the code, the Standards Board should issue an unequivocal statement that the person who had been accused in the complaint has been cleared.
"Finally, it would be helpful if some disincentive could be applied to those who make malicious or politically motivated complaints. This is easier said than done. In my experience the most common source of unjustified or unreasonable complaints to the standards board is people who were unhappy with the result of a planning application. I cannot see a way of discouraging this which would not also deter people with a genuine complaint.
"However, the second most common source of unjustified complaints is political opponents trying to score party propaganda points. And this would be relatively easy to do something about.
"Knowingly making a false statement in a complaint to the standards board should be a criminal offence, just as knowingly making a false statement on most other official forms is. Complainants to the standards board should have to state whether they are a member of a political party.
"If a member of a rival political party, or an independent councillor, makes a complaint against somebody and produces no material case to support it, then unless there are special circumstances the Standards Board should “name and shame” the complainant by putting a note in the local paper announcing that he or she has been censured for misusing the system by making unsubstantiated complaints.
"Some people reading this may ask if there is a danger that justified complaints might be deterred by such a system. If it were applied to the public in general, there would be. But if it only applies to politicians and members of political parties, the effect would be to make them check their facts more carefully before attacking the integrity of their opponents. And that would be an entirely good thing for the health of local democracy."
Comments
Having said that when executive authorities take on judicial functions, there appears to be a presumption that they will be responsible for internal discipline and behave by certain protocols. Therefore a sports disciplinary body can decide if a rugby player performed and illegal tackle or assaulted an opposition player. This is done by due process, the collection of evidence, subject to a fair hearing and the disciplining authority meeting out punishment in the case of a guilty verdict. University Deans and Proctors exercise similar functions keeping discipline in house rather than dealing with it through the courts.
Common to all these processes (judicial or quasi judicial) is that the onus is on the accuser to produce the evidence. Therefore it is quite logical that a negative cannot be met with a negative. There is no need to prove that something never happened. Cllr. Pitt had to prove something did happen and he could not. What is not clear in the Standards process is the ‘presumption of innocence’. The law must be made clearer here in order to protect the innocent.
Whilst Standards in public life are necessary the procedures need to be revisited and overhauled to prevent people using it to silence political opponents, but at the same time not deterring legitimate complainants.
Cllr. Pitt’s abuse of Standards procedures has been an appalling example of negative campaign politics. Its human costs to the accused, some of whom have had allegations outstanding against them for several weeks and sometimes months, are unacceptable. Respectable peoples’ reputations are hauled through the mud, causing untold anxiety not only to the accused but to also to family and friends.
Cynically the political consequence has been to divert a number of opposition politicians from their real work, representing the interest of their ward residents and scrutinising the ruling executive’s policies. How convenient when a damning report (the Places Survey) is published to place prominent members of the opposition in the pillory. This is killing democracy.
Additionally local tax-payers money has been used to pay for officer time and legal fees for investigating officers. Cllr. Pitt’s allegations must have cost the Council thousands of pounds. This is money that should be spent improving services for ward residents or taking enforcement action to end blight in our community. As a local tax payer I am annoyed at this waste of public resources in bolstering some egocentric councillor’s low self-esteem. Let him pay a therapist to sort out his troubles.
In the meantime Copeland’s legal officer perhaps needs to consider intervening at an early stage to determine whether there is a case to answer or whether it is in the public interest to proceed further.
Irrespective of the above Cllr. Pitt’s behaviour is an abomination. Bearing false witness is immoral and he has a case to answer in this world and the next.
Public servants should not be exempt from constructive criticism and if a complaint about an officer is posted here which explains precisely what decision the author is unhappy with, and is not actionable, I will probably leave it up. But writing that person X deserves the sack without explaining why doesn't really get us anywhere.
The purpose of the Standing Order is to prevent delays in proceedings (filibustering) and repetition in the debate. Neither of these applied in either of the debates, nor was this the reason the Labour Group gave for halting the proceedings.
Perhaps when the Chair asked for advice from the Legal Officer on a point of law, he should have advised Mr Wormstrup of the circumstances in which the procedure applied. Rather than letting the motion go through, particularly when the only grounds, given by the mover of the motion, was to stop the ‘wrecking of the Council’. In my opinion he should have challenged the move to go straight to the vote.
I hasten to add this is a legal quibble, expressed as a matter of opinion and I do not accuse the officer of any corrupt practices or maladministration.
Aside from this the guillotining of the debate shows that the Labour Group is totally incapable of dealing with dissent and allowing proper debate.
There are plenty of things which Copeland Councillors and officers have done which I disagree with, but I have seen no evidence of corruption: if I did I would take it to the police.
Constructive criticism such as Jane has posted above is quite a different matter and is entirely acceptable.
I've seen plenty of things I disagree with - and said so. But that's not the same as corruption.
1 - Mr Heap the District Auditor has threatend me with section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998.
2 - Copeland Borough Council has a DUTY to make all the Accounts and associated documentation available for public inspection but they refuse to do so, you don’t need to guess who at Copeland BC is denying this access, Mr Martin Jepson Head of Illegal and Undemocratic Services .
It's one thing having an incompetent Council but District Auditors, Audit Commission employees covering up Copeland BC's gross maladministration. The whole system stinks.
Issued by the Audit Commission.
Section 49 Audit Commission Act.
S.49 is titled ‘Restriction on Disclosure of Information.
A S.49 applies to information
i that relates to a particular body or person, and was
ii obtained by an Appointed Auditor or the Audit Commission, and was
iii obtained as part of any audit inspection or study
· or obtained under any other activity under the Audit Commission Act 1998 or Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999
B S.49 states that information referred to in A above may not be disclosed unless one more of the following applies:
1. where disclosure would be made –
· with the consent of the body or person to whom the information relates; or
· for the purpose of the Commission’s or appointed auditors statutory functions; or
· to other bodies to fulfil certain statutory functions, or
· for the purpose of criminal proceedings/investigations
2. where disclosure of information in breach of these provisions is an offence.
How does S.49 affect my right of access to information?
C where none of the circumstances in B (1) or B (2) above exists
S 49 imposes restriction on the disclosure of information
The appointed auditor
· cannot disclose information
· the Audit Commission cannot disclose information
· the Audit Commission is also prevented from disclosing information under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Freedom of Information Act recognises that S.49 restriction cannot override it.
S.44 Freedom of Information Act therefore applies. This states that where existing restrictions exist information must be withheld from disclosure.
D Where one or more of the circumstances outlined in B (1) or B (2) above exist.
S49 does not impose a restriction on the disclosure of information
· the Appointed Auditor may disclose information
· the Audit Commission cannot use S. 44 Freedom of Information Act to withhold information
· the Audit Commission will consider whether any other exemptions defined by the Freedom of Information Act apply before responding to the request.
Have you ever looked at the Councils Accounts? Try going to Copeland BC and get all the documentation relating to Whitehaven Golf Course, thats from the day Copeland took over the land to its illegal sale for a paltry £235,000. I can guarantee that the Council, Mr Martin Jepson will deny you access to it. You have a RIGHT to see it and take copies of it, they have a DUTY to make it available, but you wont be able to access it. Who enforces this - nobody.
Councillors aren't interested because the majority of them are implicated. We all know how useless Elaine Woodburn et al are, but Mrs Clarkson then chair of the scrutiny panel has as much to answer for, she certainly knew what was being done was out of order but did nothing about it. Mr Whiteside wasn't on the council at the time so he has got nothing to shy away from, but Mr Whiteside is making it clear that he isn't going to rock the boat over ANY issue no matter how bad for fear of upsetting friends, collegues and the electorate.
I appreciate that Mike feels very strongly about this and I understand why. But I happen to disagree with him.
When Mike raised this issue with myself and Cllr Alex Carroll shortly after we were elected we did go to see Martin Jepson and look at the papers relating to the sale of the Golf Course.
From having seen them it is my opinion - which I have expressed in full council in public session - that the failure to get best value was not in selling the freehold when the council did, but in failing when the site was leased some years previously to put a clause on the lease preventing that lease being reassigned without the council's written agreement.
Yvonne Clarkson did ask a number of questions at the time of the sale but was assured that it was legal and above board. I don't think she has anything to hide.
Mike challenged Copeland Council's accounts on the basis of his concerns about Whitehaven Golf Course. Although that particular concern was not sustained, the Auditors found a lot of other things they were unhappy about in that year's accounts and the following year.
It took a lot of time and a lot of money to sort out the accounts. Although it was painful at the time, it is my opinion that Mike did the residents, the taxpayers, and even in the long run Copeland Council itself a favour by challenging the accounts, because his complaint contributed to a sequence of events which has already forced the council to make significant reforms in the way resources are managed, and was one of the factors which has finally caused the council to start to recognise that we need to make substantial further improvements.
Mr Heap was the District Auditor who looked at Mike's complaint, and was also one of two senior Auditors who looked at the consecutive annual sets of Copeland Council accounts which has major problems getting signed off. A whole raft of professional auditors and accountants were also brought in as part of that process.
Now I am neither an accountant or a lawyer. But I think it beggars belief that if the sale of Whitehaven Golf Course really had been illegal, or if Martin Jepson really had been trying to cover up something criminal, none of the external experts who crawled over those books would have blown the gaff on it.
I agree that Copeland Council is still sometimes far too secretive for its' own good, and that it would have been wiser to put some of the documents which have been classed as commercially sensitive into the public domain. But councillors and the auditors have seen those documents and to the best of my knowledge nobody who has looked at them thinks the sale was illegal.
Since you are in support of the Auditors nonsense could you provide the evidence that supports this because Mr Heap certainly can't.
As I said, I think you did the community a service by helping to ensure that this all came out. However, these problems were bad management, there was no evidence of any corrupt or illegal activity - in fact, the council had MORE money in reserves than we were told - and when the records and reports were eventually sorted out, the accounts were at long last signed off.
On the second issue, the AUditor found that the sale was legal.
I don't think that either of those rulings is in conflict with the report which went to the Overview and scrutiny.
If you want to pursue the point, please drop me an email which explains which specific paragraph of the Audit report is in conflict with which specific element of the O&S report, and I'll go back to them and check.
Sometimes what is legal is not moral. I cannot comment on the sale of the golf course because I was not privy to the information. In principle I would agree that the consequences of the sale were wrong. What I do dispute is the aspersions cast over certain members of the council of whom I have not doubt acted honourably and honestly within the parameters of the powers within which they were operating.
Much as I disagree with matters at CBC I believe many of the failings have been the result of incompetence and bad management. Recently some chickens have come home to roost. It is good and I do not intend to patronise any member of the public who stands up and pushes out the boundaries on these occasions. It is healthy democracy. Yet it takes courage. Believe me I admit to being one of the boundary pushers on other issues.
It is plausible that a document that has been badly worded or is silent on a particular issue provides a certain party with a get out clause or makes something legal that is consequently unjust. This appears to be the case with the terms of the lease regarding the golf course. Subsequently others inherit the problems, but are restricted to dealing with the wording of a document. This nevertheless makes it no less frustrating for members of the public.
I sympathise with anonymous as I have a problem of my own. A planning permission in 1977 was silent with regard to putting in a road on a development that I am currently living on, as a consequence there has been an on-going row as to who is responsible for putting in a road that is compliant with adoption standards. It is pushed between pillar and post of county, district, private law and a developer who is laughing all the way to the bank.
As a member of the public I sympathise with Anonymous for having the courage to challenge what is embarrassing to the authority. It will be very difficult, legally dodgy in terms of admitting liability and possibly disloyal for CBC as an authority to admit fault. I hope that your challenge, my challenge and that of others bold enough to stand up for what we know to be right and just will eventually pay off for everyone. Just don’t expect a pat on the back and an apology. Hope that others are treated better in future, because those in authority have been alerted to weaknesses. Please take care where frustration is vented. Good people now would like to assist but are restricted by the legal oversights of their predecessors.
I refer you to Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972
Disposal of land by principal councils - "(2A) A principal council may not dispose under subsection (1) above of any land consisting or forming part of an open space unless before disposing of the land they cause notice of their intention to do so, specifying the land in question, to be advertised in two consecutive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the area in which the land is situated, and consider any objections to the proposed disposal which may be made to them."
The sale was not advertised; it was done in secret between friends with a former colleague acting as a facilitator for the buyer. The sale was without doubt UNLAWFUL with Copeland’s coffers possibly loosing out to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The sale was UNLAWFUL; Mr Mark Heap the District Auditor knows it but refuses to report let alone act on this fact.