Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
The seventh and final complaint against me under the Code of Conduct was made by Paul Nicholls on 24 July 2021 when he was Chair of Hughenden Parish Council.
Mr. Nicholls made about 20 allegations of breaches of the Code, about half of which allegedly took place in 2015, years before I became a councillor. These latter allegations should have been rejected by the Monitoring Officer but weren’t.
Once again, the complaint was not sent to me until 3 February 2022. Once again, I was very reluctant to respond; the actions complained about were at least 9 months old and many were 6 or 7 years old.
BC said a failure to co-operate was a breach of the Code.
Once again, I sent a full response which took me many hours to prepare. A very shortened version is below. Once again, I might as well have declined to respond.
Stage 2
Once again, the deputy MO made no comment on the actual allegations which by then had taken place at least a year ago.
Once again, the deputy MO decided to refer the complaint to Stage 3 because “further investigation would be helpful to understand the interplay between the issues raised, the Member Code of Conduct and the responsibilities that a councillor has as an employer with regards to their employees.”
Once again, this was a spurious reason. The investigator, Joe Thomas, was not instructed to explore this “interplay” when investigating this complaint, nor did he ask me questions about the interplay or mention it in his draft report.
Mr. Thomas’ report
Once again, I had neither the time nor the energy to comment on what Mr. Thomas said in his draft report about this complaint. Moreover, I would have found it difficult to do so as I didn’t understand what he said about this complaint.
Mr. Thomas failed to consider Mr Nicholls’ complaints separately from the other complaints. He failed to consider the evidence and failed to take into account my considered response.
Whatever his conclusions were, I assume the sub-Committee of BC’s Standards Committee agreed.
The hearing
I asked if the three complaints could be heard separately by the sub-Committee as I could not cope with three together. This request was declined.
I asked if the three complaints could be heard in public and that I would be informed of this well before the hearing took place. This request was declined.
BC said I was expected to go to the hearing and non-co-operation was a breach of the Code. I declined to go.
My complaint against Bucks Council
On 6 December 2022, I wrote formally to the Head of Governance in Bucks Council with a full and detailed complaint saying I believed BC’s lack of competence, integrity and impartiality in processing the cases against me constituted an abuse of process. I alleged I had been subject to institutional harassment and bullying by Bucks Council.
Within 6 working hours, the Head of Governance told me Bucks Council had determined I had no case.
I asked who had determined this.
The Monitoring Officer, the Deputy MO and the Head of Governance are responsible for the process for determining complaints under the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.
I was told these same three people had determined I had no case.
I responded, copying to BC’s Chief Executive, pointing out that these three people were judge and jury on the complaint made against them.
In other words, officers of Bucks Council, who are expected to hear complaints against councillors fairly and impartially, decided to determine their own case.
The reason given by the Head of Governance for my having no case was that the Council had complied with its procedures which in turn comply with the law.
I pointed out that I had given numerous examples in my complaint where BC had not complied with its procedures.
I also pointed out that institutional harassment and bullying can occur even when procedures are complied with. Persistent delays in operating complaints procedures, persistently being ignored, and repeated and unwarranted criticism for example can constitute harassment and bullying.
So too is having an investigating officer who supports the complainant and makes their case for them. And having an investigator who believes the complainant is telling the truth rather than the councillor without any evidence or explanation; who puts the burden of proof on the councillor complained about, and ignores the evidence provided by the councillor.
All of this can constitute institutional harassment and bullying.
It was worrying that those responsible for BC’s process for investigating complaints of bullying and harassment did not understand that.
An abuse of a process occurs when those in power and responsible for the process use it, or allows it to be used, to inflict unwarranted injury on those subject to that process. I believe this happened to me.
Bucks Council appears to have no procedures for investigating complaints against it of institutional harassment and bullying and abuse of process. I was simply referred to the Ombudsman.
I have now disengaged from the process – I am not reading, let alone answering, any e-mails from these officers. I feel so much better.
All I will do, once again, is ask how much it has cost the taxpayer to process these cases.
That’s it. Back to normal service next week.
Response to Mr Nicholls’ complaint
Paragraphs 1 - 4
1. Mr. Nicholls alleges that my actions undermined and harassed Ms. Woof, the then Clerk of Hughenden Parish Council, violated her dignity and created an intimidating, hostile and humiliating environment. He then provides a number of examples of these actions. However, these actions are not specific or referenced and he does not explain how these actions violated the Clerk’s dignity etc.
2. The first example is my allegedly asking questions about Ms. Woof’s legal qualifications. Mr. Nicholls does not say when he thinks I did this or, for example, whether it was at a meeting or in an e-mail.
3. If the Clerk was providing legal advice, it would be perfectly reasonable to ask whether she was legally qualified in that area or whether she had sought advice from someone who was legally qualified in that area.
4. I don’t think I asked Ms. Woof about her legal qualifications but, if I did, I fail to see how this violated the Clerk’s dignity etc.
5. The second example is my questioning Ms. Woof’s ability to record minutes accurately. I have on occasions asked the Clerk to change the draft minutes of a Council meeting but that is perfectly normal for a councillor. I fail to see how that violated Ms. Woof’s dignity etc.
6. Mr. Nicholls’ third example is about legal references to pre-determination. I don’t understand this. Mr Nicholls mentioned pre-determination at the Full Council meeting in June 2021. I said I did not understand what pre-determination meant and asked for guidance. Ms. Woof sent me the guidance a week later. I fail to see how that violated Ms. Woof’s dignity etc.
7. I do not understand the next two examples.
8. On the sixth example, I did mention the actions of the Clerk and Council on my blogsite. I did this as accurately as I could and asked those I mention to let me know if I have made factual mistakes. I had no response.
9. Hundreds of councillors across Bucks blog, tweet, use Facebook and other communication means to record and comment on what Councils do. It is part of local democracy.
10. Councillors and the Clerk are holders of public office and are required to be open and transparent – and accountable - for their actions. If they are to be held accountable, residents need to know what they are doing.
11. Again, I fail to see how informing the public about the actions of holders of public office violate their dignity etc. Being open and transparent is what the Principles of Public Life require us to do.
Paragraph 5
12. I have not released confidential information.
Paragraphs 7-13
13. Mr. Nicholls did not witness my meeting with Ms Woof on 14 May 2021. His evidence amounts to saying that Ms Woof was in “a most distressed state” when he saw her after the meeting.
14. When I met Ms. Woof, she showed no signs of distress. On the contrary, she was angry and lost her temper.
15. Most of what Mr. Nicholls says in these paragraphs is emotive and incorrect. For example, he says I implied I had “to fight to see the documents”. This is simply nonsense. I didn’t fight to see the documents (they were handed to me by Ms. Woof) and I didn’t imply that I did.
Paragraph 13-21
16. Mr. Nicholls provides no examples or evidence for his many assertions so I cannot respond. Nor can I understand the relevance of these paragraphs to Mr. Nicholls’ complaint about a breach of the Code of Conduct for councillors.
Handling of the complaint
17. Mr. Nicholls breached confidentiality and HPC’s procedures for handling complaints against a councillor and possibly encouraged Council to break the law including by: -
- Allowing the complaints to go on the agenda of a Full Council meeting;
- Inviting members of the public to attend, participate and give advice on the complaints;
- Ignoring that advice;
- Failing to declare an interest in that he chaired a Committee which employed these members of the public;
- Refusing to tell me under what procedures the complaints were being handled;
- Threatening to throw me out the meeting (his words) when I asked this question again;
- Reading out a statement about the complaints;
- Refusing to provide me with a copy of the statement; and
- Encouraging other councillors to make similar complaints.
18. I therefore feel no obligation to protect the confidentiality of Mr. Nicholls’ complaints.