22 January 2023
Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
I said I would set out the seven complaints made against me to Bucks Council's Monitoring Officer (MO) alleging I had breached Hughenden Parish Council’s Code of Conduct.
I have already set out the first complaint in my blog of 21 August. Someone complained about one of my blogs which I posted before I became a councillor.
At the time, I treated the complaint and BC’s handling of it as a joke.
But, in retrospect, it wasn’t funny.
This is what happened.
1. It took over 3 months for the then deputy MO to inform me about the complaint.
2. The deputy MO failed to provide me with a copy of BC’s complaints procedures.
I was only given a copy of the procedures months later. They do not appear to be on BC’s website. In fact, the procedures I was given are intended to be guidance for complainants; there appears to be no guidance for councillors against whom complaints are made.
3. According to the procedures, the deputy MO should have simply rejected the complaint.
The procedures say: -
“Before the assessment of a case begins, the Monitoring Officer must be satisfied that the complaint meets the following requirements:
…… (ii) The named Member was in office at the time of the alleged conduct and acting in their official capacity…
If the complaint fails one of these tests, it cannot be investigated as a breach of the Code of Conduct.”
The deputy MO knew that at the time of “my alleged conduct” I was not a councillor and could not have been acting in an official capacity. So, she should have simply rejected the complaint on these grounds.
That should have been the end of it.
However, the deputy MO did not reject the complaint because it failed this test. Instead, she decided no further action would be taken – and then went on to consider the complaint and comment.
.
4. According to the procedures, the deputy MO had no authority to consider or comment on this complaint in her role as the deputy MO.
The deputy MO's reason for commenting was that “whilst the post was made before you officially took up office, it remained once you were a councillor.”
There is nothing in the procedures about things remaining once someone is a councillor.
The guidance above is very clear – the member must be in “office at the time of the alleged conduct and acting in their official capacity”. And I obviously wasn’t.
Nor does this reason make any sense.
Does it mean for example that the MO can consider and comment on complaints about anything on social media made before a person becomes a councillor?
Can the MO comment on complaints about e-mails sent before a person becomes a councillor? Or complaints about speeches or interviews in the media given before a person becomes a councillor? Does it include posters, or leaflets which are still available when a person becomes a councillor?
How old do these communications have to be before they don’t count? A month? A year? Forever?
5. The deputy MO decided to comment on the complaint. So, according to the procedures, she should have provided me with a copy of the complaint and given me 20 working days to respond.
She didn’t. The deputy MO considered the complaint, came to a view and then informed me about the complaint.
6. I wasn’t told the name of the complainant.
According to the procedures, “Bucks Council does not deal with anonymous complaints”. So, the deputy MO knew who the complainant was.
The procedures say:
“As a matter of fairness and natural justice we believe members who are complained about have a right to know who made the complaint and to be provided with full details of the complaint.
We are unlikely to withhold your identity or the details of the complaint unless you have good reason to believe that to do so would be contrary to the public interest, would prejudice any subsequent investigation or you have reasonable ground for believing you or any witness in the matter would be at risk.”
There is no reason to think that my knowing the complainant’s name would be contrary to the public interest or would prejudice any subsequent investigation as the deputy MO said the case was going no further.
Which means the deputy MO withheld the name of the complainant because she considered the complainant had reasonable grounds for believing they would be at risk.
Just think about that for a minute. According to the deputy MO, giving me the name of the complainant would put the complainant at risk.
I have no idea what risk the complainant would face if I knew their name. Is the deputy MO suggesting, for example, that there were grounds for believing I might accost the complainant on the street and attack them? Or dump manure on their doorstep? Or send the boys round?
On what evidence did the deputy MO decide there was a risk? I have never been arrested, let alone charged, with any offence. I am not a member of an illegal or subversive organization. I have no connections with terrorists or criminals.
I am a boringly law-abiding member of the community. So why should the deputy MO believe the complainant would be at risk if I knew their name?
Conclusion
The then deputy MO of Bucks Council failed to comply with BC’s procedures.
1. She failed to inform me about the complaint until 3 months after it was made;
2. She failed to provide me with the procedures for how BC handles complaints against councillors;
3. She failed to reject the complaint on the grounds that I was not in office at the time of the alleged conduct;
4. She exceeded her authority as deputy MO in considering and commenting on the complaint;
5. She failed to give me 20 working days to respond to the complaint before she considered the complaint and commented; and
6. She failed to tell me the name of the complainant. Unless there was evidence to justify this decision, it was, according to the procedures, unfair and a denial of natural justice.
You might see why, in retrospect, I didn’t find this funny.
Complainants and councillors rely on the MO and their staff in BC to operate the complaints process competently, with integrity and impartially.
It’s up to you to decide whether they did.
All I would say is that it didn’t auger well for BC’s handling of the six complaints that I received in February/March 2022.