8 February 2023
Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
On 3 February 2022, the Principal Governance Officer in Bucks Council wrote to me about two complaints. He said these had been sent to me on 16 August 2021 asking for comments by 14 September 2021. He added that “We do not appear to have heard back from you at that time and should have checked with you that you definitely had no further comment to make.”
I replied that I had not received these complaints before. I had received a complaint on 16 August 2021 i.e., my first complaint (see my blog of 22 January 2023) but not any others.
One of the complaints sent to me on 3 February 2022 (my sixth) was from Melinda Woof, ex-Clerk of Hughenden Parish Council. She made her complaint on 6 July 2021.
Ms. Woof alleged, primarily, that I had bullied and harassed her at a meeting on 14 May 2021 at which I had asked for a copy of legal advice provided to the Council. The meeting was unwitnessed and lasted about 5-10 minutes.
I was very reluctant to respond. The meeting had taken place nearly 9 months previously and it had taken Bucks Council nearly 7 months to send me the complaint.
BC did not apologise for their mistake but said a failure to co-operate was a breach of the Code.
In the end, I sent a full response which took me many hours to prepare. A shortened version is below.
Once again, I might as well have declined to respond.
Stage 2
In his Stage 2 report, the deputy Monitoring Officer made no comment on the allegations about the meeting on 14 May 2021 which by then had taken place a year ago.
His comments concentrated on my blogs (which Ms. Woof had not complained about) on the grounds that I had invited a review of my blogs (which I hadn’t).
Once again, he 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’ draft report
Mr. Thomas concluded that “Ms. Woof was a reliable witness who was determined to assist HPC as best she could”. By implication, he thought I was not a reliable witness and was not telling the truth.
Mr. Thomas gave no explanation or justification for believing Ms. Woof and not me.
Despite Mr. Thomas saying he placed the burden of proof on the complainant, he said “he took Ms. Woof’s evidence at face value”. My evidence was discounted.
Mr. Thomas gave no explanation or justification for reversing the burden of proof from the complainant to the councillor complained about.
Mr. Thomas concluded that my behaviour at the meeting on 14 May 2021 showed a lack of respect. I was disrespectful because I had not done as Ms. Woof wished and had disregarded her opinion.
I find it worrying that the investigating officer believes that a councillor breaches the Code if they decline to do what a Clerk wishes or has a different opinion to the Clerk.
Mr. Thomas used the definition of bullying as “offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient.”
Mr. Thomas said there was no suggestion that I had “resorted to violence, shouted or acted in a physically aggressive manner” at the meeting with Ms Woof. However, on a “very fine balance” he concluded that my behaviour was bullying because I had put Ms. Woof in “an invidious and deeply uncomfortable position”.
That position seemed to be that I had asked Ms. Woof, politely, for a copy of some legal advice and, when Ms. Woof declined to provide it, I had asked, politely, on what authority she declined.
In short, the “invidious and deeply uncomfortable position” Ms. Woof found herself in was being asked, politely, to do her job.
I find it worrying that the investigating officer considers this bullying.
I set out in my blog of 1 February 2023 the difficulties I faced, after my and my husband's operations, in responding to Mr. Thomas’ draft report. I had neither the time nor the energy to comment on what he said about this complaint. I decided enough was enough and disengaged from the process.
I haven’t read Mr. Thomas’ final report on this complaint nor the conclusion of the hearing of BC’s Sub-Committee. I’m just going to assume it agreed with Mr. Thomas.
My response to Ms. Woof’s complaint
Substance of the complaint
1. Ms. Woof does not specify which part of HPC’s Code of Conduct she believes I have breached nor relate that to evidence of that breach. She merely says I “breached the Nolan principles of honesty and integrity” and “had scant regard for the Nolan Principles, Employment Law and the rules and policies of Hughenden Parish Council.”
2. All I can do is try to address Ms. Woof’s comments, paragraph by paragraph.
3. In general, all I asked, politely and in a straight forward way, was for Ms. Woof to carry out the functions and responsibilities set out in her job description, in particular: -
“The Clerk is expected to advise the Council on, and assist elected council members in the formation of, overall policy, strategy and operations to be followed in respect of the Authority's activities and to produce all the information required for making effective decisions and to implement constructively all decisions by working collaboratively with, external bodies and staff..” (my bold)
4. I asked repeatedly to meet with Ms. Woof to discuss our respective roles but she either ignored my requests or declined to meet.
Paragraph 1 of Ms. Woof’s complaint
5. Ms. Woof refers to the disproportionate amount of time she spent on dealing with my requests and demands. Ms. Woof does not provide any examples.
6. I made no demands, only requests. Apart from requests for information, the only request I made from May 2021 to 6 July 2021, when Ms. Woof made her complaint, was to delay the first Council meeting on 18 May. That request was declined.
7. I made 14 requests for information from 2 May to 6 July all of which I needed for Council meetings. 8 requests were ignored. 1 request was refused. 5 were provided but not when needed.
8. All the information I requested was needed to inform myself about decisions to be taken at Council meetings. Much of the information I requested was information missing from papers for Council meetings.
9. I fail to see how such a small and reasonable number of requests could cause Ms. Woof a disproportionate amount of her time and resources, or how this could have undermined her position or be a breach of the Nolan principles or HPC’s Code of Conduct.
10. In fact, I spent a disproportionate amount of my time and resources requesting information which should have been provided by Ms. Woof as a matter of course and in line with her job description.
11. I believe Ms. Woof’s lack of response to my requests showed a lack of respect to me, and her failure to provide the information when needed, and mostly not at all, was a failure by her to carry out her duties as a Clerk.
Paragraphs 2-6
12. Ms. Woof’s recollection of our meeting on 14 May 2021 is somewhat different to my own which I recorded the same day while it was fresh in my mind and sent to her and copied to Council.
13. What cannot be disputed are three things.
14. First, I did not “make an appointment on agreed terms and then change them on the doorstep.” I never agreed any “terms” and I was consistent in what I was requesting.
15. Second, Ms. Woof has never provided any evidence to support her assertion that she was following Council instructions in declining to provide the legal advice. I asked for the advice on 2 May and the Clerk had time to refer me to these instructions before we met or at our meeting. She did not do so.
16. Ms. Woof has had ample time since then to tell me on what authority she refused to provide me with the information. She still has not done so.
17. I therefore think it reasonable to conclude that Ms. Woof had no authority to refuse to provide a copy.
18. Third, the Clerk would have known that I would not wish to read the advice in the Council offices. I had attended the Council offices four days before and had told the Clerk that I did not want to enter the offices then because of the risk of getting COVID.
19. I had good reason to be careful and the Clerk knew this. I told her that I was having an eye operation that week and that my daughter -in-law was about to give birth. I am also over 70.
20. There some things on which I can only disagree. I declined to give an assurance not to photograph the advice and I did make that clear.
21. I did give an assurance that I would not release the advice into the public domain. I have kept to that assurance.
22. Ms. Woof gives no examples of my alleged “overly assertive, accusatory and demeaning” behaviour so I cannot address this specifically. There were no witnesses to our conversation. I did not raise my voice or use any demeaning or offensive language.
23. Ms. Woof was angry and lost her temper. I remained quiet and calm.
24. Ms. Woof said at the meeting that she felt bullied and harassed and would be complaining about my behaviour to her trade union. I did not say anything at the time but offered the next day to talk to her with her trade union. Ms. Woof did not respond to that offer.
25. Ms. Woof is incorrect when she says that “she was bullied into providing the file of information on the Cllr’s terms”. I didn’t set any “terms” nor bully her; I merely requested a copy of the advice. When Ms. Woof declined to provide the copy, I accepted this – indeed how could I have made the Clerk give me a copy?
26. I would point out that: -
a) One of Ms. Woof’s key purposes in her job description is to “produce all the information required for making effective decisions.” I asked for a copy of the advice on 2 May and had no response. I asked again on 13 May and asked on what authority the Clerk declined to provide me with a copy. She did not provide that authority and declined to provide that information;
b) Ms. Woof therefore failed to carry out this key purpose;
c) Ms. Woof expected me to come into the office when I had made it clear that I did not wish to do so because of the risk from COVID. She therefore had no respect or concern for my health and safety as an elderly woman recovering from an eye operation;
d) Ms. Woof then suggested I read the advice outside. Despite it being May, the weather was cold and rain threatened. Again, Ms. Woof showed no respect and concern for my health and safety (nor indeed for my dignity);
e) Ms. Woof does not mention it in her complaint but she suggested that I should come back that afternoon so that I could be supervised by other councillors. I said nothing at the time but I thought that suggestion was demeaning to me;
f) Because Ms. Woof refused to provide a copy or let me take the document home, I spent an uncomfortable and cold hour reading the document in my car. Again, it showed a lack of respect and concern for my health and safety as an elderly woman recovering from an eye operation.
27. I was honest and polite throughout. I did not bully or harass Ms. Woof or treat her with disrespect.
28. On the other hand, I put up with a considerable degree of inconvenience and discomfort, and I put up with her lack of respect and concern for my health and safety, her demeaning suggestion that I should be supervised and her anger and lose of temper. I did this calmly and quietly.
Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9
29. I do not understand what Ms. Woof is complaining about here. For example, she does not specify which e-mails (1st sentence) or which former councillor (3rd sentence) nor say how they “call her integrity into account”. Nor does she relate anything of what she says to a breach of the Code of Conduct or the Nolan principles.
Ms. Woof’s handling of her complaint
30. Ms. Woof put her complaint on the agenda of a Full Council meeting, without specifying what it was, knowing that Council would be in breach of its procedures and possibly in breach of the law. She then: -
- refused to take the item off the agenda when I asked;
- did not declare an interest at the meeting even though it was obvious that she had a personal interest in the outcome of the item;
- stayed in the meeting and participated in the discussion;
- ignored the advice of her ex-colleagues from the Buckinghamshire Association of Local Councils who advised the complaint should go direct to the Monitoring Officer;
- did not advise Council that what it was doing was in breach of its procedures and possibly unlawful which it was her responsibility to do as the Clerk; and
- did not advise the Chairman not to read a statement out as this too was in breach of HPC’s procedures and possibly the law.
31. In short, Ms. Woof breached confidentiality and knowingly encouraged the Council to breach its procedures and possibly the law for her own personal benefit. She did this when it was her responsibility to ensure the Council complied with its procedures and the law.