Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
11 March 2023
The Bucks Free Press put an article on its website two days ago with the headline “Hughenden councillor banned from offices and forced to apologise” above a picture of me. The article reported, inaccurately, on a press release issued by Bucks Council.
A similar headline and article were printed in the BFP yesterday.
So, I thought I ought to correct the BFP as soon as I could; you may be reassured (or disappointed) that I have not been “banned from offices” nor “forced to apologise”.
An aside
There’s a lot of people reading my blogs at the moment, courtesy of Bucks Council and the BFP. So, I am taking the opportunity to let readers know that I am proposing to Hughenden Parish Council next week that it runs a pilot for mini- allotments on the allotment site on Primrose Hill, Widmer End.
If you are interested, let me know. More information is in the papers (Appendix E at AGENDA-14.03.23-with-Supporting-Papers.pdf (hughenden-pc.gov.uk).
The BFP article
Back to the BFP article. Late Thursday afternoon, a reporter on the BFP e-mailed to ask me for comments on a press release issued by Bucks Council. I asked them “what press release?” and went to do other things.
In the evening, a couple of residents e-mailed to let me know about the article BFP had put on-line. The article had gone on the BFP’s website several hours before I had been asked for comment.
The article presumably repeated what BC’s press release said i.e. the decisions made by BC’s standards committee on the three complaints made against me under HPC’s Code of Conduct. I assume the standards committee had decided that I had breached the Code for all three cases.
I say “assumed” because, as I have said in previous blogs, I have disengaged from the process. I have already written more than enough about these complaints (see my previous seven blogs from 19 January). You can decide yourself whether I have breached HPC’s Code of Conduct. I know I haven’t.
I assume BC’s press release then set out the sanctions that BC’s standards committee would recommend to Hughenden Parish Council.
What the BFP got wrong
Unfortunately, the BFP misunderstands the relationship between Bucks Council and a parish council and between BC and a parish councillor; the BFP seems to assume that because BC has recommended sanctions that these sanctions have automatically taken place.
For example, because BC’s standards committee has decided I should be banned from the parish council offices, the BFP assumed I was banned. Or because BC’s standard’s committee thinks I should apologise, the BFP assumes I have been forced to apologise.
Well, the BFP has got it wrong.
As far as I am aware, no-one in Bucks Council – none of its officers, nor its committees or its Council - can impose sanctions on a parish councillor. Nor can it instruct a parish council.
All BC’s standards committee can do is write to a parish council recommending the sanctions that the standards committee thinks the parish council should impose.
As far as I am aware, no-one in BC has written to HPC informing it of the outcome of the complaints procedure nor recommending the sanctions it thinks HPC should impose on me.
Which is a bit odd really. Surely BC should have informed HPC about BC’s decisions and recommendations before BC decided to go public?
Wouldn’t it have been polite (and dare I say respectful?) for BC to let HPC know before Cllr Broom, the Chair of the standards sub-committee, announced it to the press?
So, to avoid any embarrassment for my fellow councillors on HPC, I informed them myself on Thursday.
My response
At the same time, I tried to correct BFP’s facts by commenting on its website and writing to the editor. I complained that the headline was untrue and most of the article was incorrect. I also complained that the article had been posted without giving me the opportunity to reply.
The BFP said they understood my concerns and would be happy to receive a response. So, I sent one and some of the response was in the paper on Friday.
However, the BFP failed to include the part of my response where I explained that I had made a formal complaint to Bucks Council of abuse of process, and institutional harassment and bullying by those responsible for the complaints process.
Nor did the BFP print the part where I explained that those responsible for the process i.e. the Monitoring Officer, the deputy Monitoring Officer and the Head of Governance had decided, in 6 working hours, that I had no case.
Or the part where I pointed out this is known as marking your own homework, and that it rather proved my case that Bucks Council's complaints process lacks integrity, competence and impartiality.
But presumably the BFP had its reasons for not including these parts of my response.
Now what?
It is entirely up to HPC to decide what sanctions, if any, to impose on me. I will recuse myself from any Council discussions on the issue and leave the meeting (with pleasure).
But just to be clear, no-one can ban a councillor from holding office or make them resign, nor stop a councillor from attending and voting at Full Council meetings where decisions are taken.
The electorate has the democratic right to decide who represents them and once elected, as I was, a councillor cannot be removed from office except in specified circumstances laid down by the law (like receiving a custodial sentence).
The standards committee recommends I should be banned from the council premises. I wonder under what statutory power a parish council can ban a councillor – or indeed a member of the public – from its offices.
But anyway, contrary to what the BFP says, I am not banned from HPC’s council offices – and indeed was in the office yesterday.
But even if I was banned, it would make little difference to my life. Ms. Woof, an ex-Clerk of HPC and one of the complainants, banned me from the council’s offices – with no authority – for 5 months in 2021 and life carried on.
BC’s standards committee recommends I should apologise. Contrary to what the BFP says, I have not been forced to apologise. Nor has HPC asked me to do so.
The standards committee recommends I should undertake training. No-one can force a parish councillor to undertake training. Unlike BC councillors, we are unpaid volunteers.
I am keen on councillors undertaking training they need to do their work – and I have gone to training events since I became a councillor.
However, forcing councillors to undertake training is counterproductive and a waste of public money. And HPC has not asked me to do so.
(Mind you a week’s training course on the Cornish Riviera in summer at the taxpayers’ expense might make me change my mind)
I am not sure whether BC has recommended HPC remove me from membership of HPC Committees. But I am not on any Committees and none of them (except the Finance Committee) has met since last March. So that would make little difference to my life or the Council’s.
Or perhaps I could be removed from membership of HPC’s working groups, like the Streetlights Working Group which I chair.
I suppose I could be prevented from doing anything except turning up to Council meetings.
Or I suppose HPC could withdraw any delegated authority I have. However, the only delegated authority I have is to authorise payments from HPC’s bank account to creditors – and I have been asking for nearly a year for other councillors to provide cover for this job. So that would be a bit counterproductive.
In fact, when you think of it, all HPC can do is to relieve me of doing parish council work (which my husband would say would be no bad thing).
Welcoming the publicity
BC appears to have publicised its decisions as some sort of sanction. I am told it is very unusual to do this but presumably the standards committee has its reasons.
But I am not embarrassed nor ashamed by the publicity because I know I haven’t breached the Code of Conduct.
On the contrary, I welcome the publicity. There are councillors out there who are breaching the Code of Conduct and it would be good to stop such behaviour. But the complaints procedure doesn’t do that. It lacks competence, integrity and impartiality. It also lacks teeth. I just wish I had had the good sense to disengage in the first place as it is also a waste of taxpayers’ money.
More people need to know what the complaints procedure is like. So, as far as i am concerned, publicity is good and not a sanction.
I only wish the BFP had done its homework and reported the issue accurately.