1 February 2023
Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
In February 2022, Ms. Hogan, then the Acting Clerk of HPC, said she intended to resign and take a case of constructive dismissal to an Employment Tribunal on the grounds of my harassing and bullying her. She had already made a number of allegations about me.
So, I exercised my right as a councillor under HPC’s Code of Conduct to “stop any conversation or interaction in person” with Ms. Hogan.
Ms. Hogan then made a complaint to the Monitoring Officer that my exercising that right was a personal attack, a lack of respect, bullying, an abuse of my power, harassment and a breach of the Code.
She made further allegations of harassment and bullying against me, none of which could be true because I had exercised my right under the Code and had no personal contact with Ms. Hogan without a witness.
The deputy MO decided to refer the complaint to Stage 3 of the complaints process because “further investigation will be helpful in determining 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”.
I questioned whether this was a legitimate reason for an investigation and whether an individual councillor had any responsibilities as an employer. BC said it was a legitimate reason and councillors did have such responsibilities.
BC said it had asked the investigator for Stage 3 to comment on this “interplay”. I later found this was incorrect; BC did not ask the investigator to do this.
I made detailed responses on the complaint and on the so- called “interplay”. This took me many hours of time and effort.
The investigator asked me no questions about the “interplay” and his draft report made no mention of the issue.
The investigator also made no mention in his draft report of the right of councillors in the Code to protect themselves from threatening behaviour.
In fact, the investigator made no mention of my responses to the complaints. I might as well have declined to respond.
He concluded that my declining to meet with Ms. Hogan alone constituted a lack of respect, bullying and a breach of the Code.
I was invited to comment on the draft report and did so in detail. I found the draft confusing, unprofessional and biased.
In particular, I pointed out that, if his conclusion was accepted, it negated the whole purpose of this part of the Code and would expose councillors to abuse, intimidation and threats from local authority employees without any means of protection under the Code of Conduct.
I concluded the reason for the investigation which BC gave me was spurious; for whatever reason BC had decided to mislead me for months.
I pointed out that, in misleading me, BC had caused me many hours of wasted time and effort and, as BC knew, considerable stress at a time when my husband’s health and my own was not good.
This was the point where I said enough is enough. For these and other reasons, I told BC that I had now no confidence in their integrity, competence and impartiality in dealing with complaints about breaches of the Code of Conduct and that I would disengage from the process.
BC told me that non-cooperation was a breach of the Code.
I didn’t read the investigator’s final report and I declined to go to the hearing of the Sub-Committee of the Standards and General Purposes Committee.
BC told me that I was expected to go and non-cooperation was a breach of the Code.
I did say I would let you know the outcome of the hearing. I am afraid I have changed my mind. Since I began these blogs, I have received a number of e-mails from BC but I just can’t stand reading them. They make me feel ill.
I will just assume that the Sub-Committee agreed with Mr. Thomas. It’s much better for my mental health.
A fuller explanation is below the picture.
Postscript
On 3 October 2022, Ms. Hogan was paid £2000 by HPC. Council did not agree this expenditure and, according to the internal auditor, the payment was unauthorised and did not comply with HPC’s Financial Regulations. According to the then Clerk, there was no agreement to explain or justify HPC’s payment.
Background
In February 2022, when I was informed that Ms. Hogan intended to take a case of constructive dismissal, I already knew about three allegations she had made.
She had complained under HPC’s Code of Conduct alleging that my three e-mails asking her to amend her draft minutes constituted harassment, dishonesty and fraud (see previous blog).
She had also alleged, in an open e-mail, that I had released information about her health status to a resident. I didn’t release that information. Indeed, I couldn’t have done because I didn’t know her health status.
Ms. Hogan had also alleged, in an open e-mail, that I had breached the Code by using the Freedom of Information Act (see my blog of 1 January 2023).
Paragraph 7.1.2 of HPC’s Code of Conduct says: -
“In your contact with [local authority employees], you should treat them politely and courteously. Rude and offensive behaviour lowers the public’s expectations and confidence in councillors. In return, you have a right to expect respectful behaviour from [local authority employees]. If local authority employees are being abusive, intimidatory or threatening you are entitled to stop any conversation or interaction in person or online …. (my bold)
Ms. Hogan’s allegations were intended to help her build a case for a Tribunal. I was being threatened. So I took advice and decided to use the right set out in Paragraph 7.1.2.
I therefore wrote to Ms. Hogan on 18 February declining to meet with her without a witness or the meeting being recorded. I told her I was doing this for my protection.
On 28 February 2022, Ms. Hogan resigned. Her resignation letter, not copied to me but sent to a number of people and not in confidence, alleged that I had harassed and bullied her.
In March, Ms. Hogan made further allegations that I had bullied and harassed her by shouting at her. She made these allegations during an interview carried out by two HPC councillors. Two lawyers specialising in HR issues in local authorities advised that that interview was unlawful.
Ms. Hogan provided no details or times/dates for these alleged incidents of harassment and bullying. None of these allegations could be true because I had had no personal contact with Ms. Hogan, to my recollection, without witnesses, since at least September 2021 when Ms. Woof, the then Clerk, banned me from meeting with herself and Ms. Hogan alone.
I had about 6 or 7 meetings with Ms. Hogan between my e-mail of 18 February and her leaving HPC; all of them had someone else present.
What I thought was a prudent step in declining to meet Ms. Hogan alone turned out to be a wise decision.
Ms. Hogan also made allegations of bullying and harassment about another councillor which similarly could not be true.
The complaint
Ms. Hogan did not put these allegations to the deputy MO as required under HPC’s procedures. Instead, on the same day she resigned, she complained to the deputy Monitoring Officer (MO) in Bucks Council that my declining to meet with her without witnesses or a recording was personal attack, a lack of respect, bullying, an abuse of my power, harassment and a breach of the Code.
I received that complaint on 7 March.
I prepared a full response but asked for an assurance that the MO would not send a copy to Ms. Hogan as what I said could then be used in her case to the Employment Tribunal. Bucks Council would not give me that assurance so I declined to send a full response at that stage.
My response therefore merely set out Ms. Hogan’s allegations; concluded that at least one of the purposes of her complaint was to provide evidence for her constructive dismissal case; and said I denied breaching the Code of Conduct.
The complaint went to Stage 2.
Stage 2
The Deputy MOs made no assessment but referred the complaint to Stage 3 because “further investigation will be helpful in determining 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”.
I repeatedly queried this reason for referring the complaint to Stage 3; I contended that the purpose of any investigation should be to determine whether I had breached the Code - not to help determine this “interplay”.
Moreover, I didn’t think an individual councillor had any responsibilities as an employer with regards to the Council’s employees; the responsibilities were corporate as employees were employed by the Council. I asked where these responsibilities of an individual councillor as an employer were set out.
BC was not able to provide that information but continued to say that referral on the grounds of helping BC determine this “interplay” was legitimate and continued to maintain that an individual councillor did have responsibilities as an employer to an employee of the Council. Stage 3
BC appointed an investigator, Joe Thomas, a junior counsel with Landmark Chambers and I was asked to attend an interview with him about this complaint (and the other two complaints which I have yet to set out).
At the beginning of July, the then Clerk of HPC told me that Ms. Hogan had not registered a claim of constructive dismissal at an Employment Tribunal and any claim would now be ineligible.
So, on 7 July I sent my full response to Ms. Hogan’s complaint to the deputy MO. It took me many hours to prepare.
In summary, I said that I declined to meet Ms. Hogan without a witness because: -
a) Ms. Hogan and I had very different views of what constituted harassment and bullying and therefore I wanted any future meetings to be recorded or witnessed;
b) I did not want any further misunderstandings of oral communications;
c) I thought Ms. Hogan’s judgement about my behaviour in using the Freedom of Information Act was seriously flawed;
d) I wanted to protect myself from further stressful, time consuming and unwarranted complaints, many of which were in open e-mails or notes of meetings; and
e) I wanted to protect my mental health.
I pointed out that the Code of Conduct gave me the right to stop any conversation or interaction in person or online. I had not gone that far because in mid-February I was only one of two councillors on HPC and I had to continue to do business with Ms. Hogan if the Council was to function.
I also pointed out that Ms. Hogan and the MO had found it acceptable when Ms. Woof, the then Clerk, had banned me in September 2021 from meeting with her and the deputy Clerk without another councillor being present (see blog of 30 September 2021).
I failed to see how Ms. Hogan or the MO could reconcile that ban with Ms. Hogan’s complaint that my unwillingness to meet Ms. Hogan, politely expressed and for my protection and a right under the Code, was a personal attack, a lack of respect, bullying, an abuse of my power, harassment and a breach of the Code.
I also sent a full response to BC about the whole purpose of the investigation i.e. the “interplay”. That too took many hours of work.
By this time, my husband had had a major operation and was not well. I was due for an operation. I informed BC of this and told them that the complaints were putting me under considerable stress.
I was told that non-co-operation was a breach of the Code.
I was interviewed by Mr. Thomas on 15 July. He asked me no questions about Ms. Hogan’s complaint and nothing about a councillor’s responsibilities as an employer.
Mr. Thomas’s report
At the end of August, I discovered, by chance, that e-mails from BC had gone into the junk folder of my HPC e-mail account. On 30 August I found out that the deadline for responding to Mr. Thomas’ draft report was 30 August. 30 August also happened to be the day of my much-deferred operation. As I left for the hospital, I asked BC for an extension to the deadline.
BC declined to give me the 20 working days I requested for this and the other two complaints which the draft report covered.
In the end, I decided to comment on Mr. Thomas’s conclusions on Ms. Hogan’s complaint and not the other two complaints. I simply didn’t have the time and the energy.
I have already covered at the top of this blog the two most important omissions from Mr. Thomas’ draft report i.e. the right of a councillor under the Code to stop conversations or interactions when threatened; and any mention of the so-called “interplay.
However there were other issues of concern showing bias and a lack of professionalism;-
1. The draft report was confusing as it dealt with three cases together, mixing material relevant to one case with others. The report should have considered each complaint separately on its merits.
2. Mr. Thomas said he placed the burden of proof on the complainant. However, he didn’t. Ms. Hogan set out no explanation in her complaint as to how I breached the Code of Conduct. She presented no case.
In fact, Bucks Council could not understand Ms. Hogan’s complaint when she first complained. BC went back to Ms. Hogan and asked for an explanation. She then merely highlighted various parts of the Code in yellow saying these were the areas she thought had been breached.
In the end BC merely instructed Mr. Thomas to consider whether I had harassed the Clerk by declining to meet with her alone.
Mr. Thomas found this instruction inadequate saying he would consider her “complaint in full” on the grounds that it would be unfair if a busy local authority failed to summarise a complaint properly and provided what he called an “inaccurate gloss” of the complaint.
He then took on the task of setting out the complaint and argued the case for Ms. Hogan.
3. Mr. Thomas also failed to put the burden of proof on Ms. Hogan when he accepted the views she expressed at interview without checking their veracity or giving me the opportunity to comment when he interviewed me.
For example, Mr. Thomas concluded there was no immediate need for me to decline to meet Ms. Hogan because there was “no immediate business to be decided” while the Council was inquorate.
However, Council continued to be responsible for its burial grounds, the maintenance of its land, the provision of services and paying its bills. This work was normally done as part of the day-to- day work of the Clerk/deputy Clerk. However, during this period, we had complaints that the Council was not carrying out this work. I and others offered to help here but Ms. Hogan declined this help.
So, there was considerable immediate business to conduct during this period even though the Council was inquorate. So, there was a need for me to decline to meet Ms. Hogan alone.
4. Mr. Thomas concluded that “it was incumbent on me to seek alternative assistance.” It wasn’t. There is no requirement for a councillor to seek alternative assistance when that councillor is abused, intimidated or threatened.
5. Mr. Thomas concluded I had an “obligation to get the relationship back on track”. There is no such obligation on a councillor, particularly when an employee has stated their intention of resigning and bringing a case of constructive dismissal on the grounds of harassment and bullying against that councillor.