Thread by @andrewtlynch

OK, here's a letter to the members of Scrutiny at @WestofEnglandCA meeting tomorrow. I have been gagged by the monitoring officer because I want to point out that the senior officer misled members and democratic discussion was derailed. No emails back and fro included. soz.

I had intended to address tomorrow's meeting. I filed my statement three days in advance of the deadline of noon on March 7. I was contacted just before noon that day and told my statement was not acceptable to the monitoring officer. I was given the opportunity to redraft it...

I posed some questions and redrafted my statement, but was told it was still unacceptable. As you will see from the exchange below (apologies for its length, although it is illuminating), there was never any chance ...

... that a statement potentially critical of the actions/inaction of the chief executive and the monitoring officer would be put before the committee and public. It seems that the chair of the committee also played a part in rejecting the statements

The facts remain incontrovertible:

1. The previous scrutiny chair, Alison Streatfeild-James, secured  at the September meeting agreement for discussion by the committee of the revised Grant Thornton Report.

2. In January, Cllr Lucy Hodge asked what had happened to “consideration” of the report.
3. Chief executive Stephen Peacock replied to Cllr Hodge: “I don’t quite know what that report is. We’ll come back to you.” ...

The monitoring officer said nothing. For the record, both officers were sitting next to Ms Streatfeild-James at the September meeting...

The net result is that the Grant Thornton revised report has not been subject to the scrutiny discussion that was secured by Alison Streatfeild-James. That is a derailing of the democratic process...

Of course, the chief executive knows what the Grant Thornton report is. The authority has confirmed that. I do not dispute that; in fact, that is my point. I don’t know why the chief executive denied knowledge of the most consequential report on the workings (and the failings) of

the authority in recent years. I don’t know why the monitoring officer did not explain to the chief executive and members what Cllr Hodge was talking about...

I would add that in response to me and my statements the authority has alleged possible defamation, inaccuracies and suggested that scrutiny has already discussed the report with the mayor – irrelevant since my complaint is about the discussion agreed by Alison Streatfeild-James

...in September. The authority has implied that discussion by the audit committee was a suitable substitute, as if audit and scrutiny were interchangeable...

... As Ms Streatfeild-James said: “I have read [the report] because I attended the audit … but I feel myself that that Grant Thornton report ought to come to scrutiny as part of the transformation programme response to the Best Value Notice.” That, as we know, has not happened.

I have already complained to the authority about this incident in January and asked for a “hearings panel” of independent members to consider my complaint. The monitoring officer and the chair sat in judgment on themselves. No independent party was approached...

I presume they both knew the extent of the conflict of interest that will be perceived. As you will see in the email exchanges below about my statement, I was offered a chance to speak to the chair in private about the democratic process...

I suspect it is only a matter of time before the monitoring officer brands my efforts to see the democratic process followed as vexatious...

In conclusion, I find it hard to see where officers and the elected chair have followed any of Nolan’s seven principles of public life.
I will be taking these incidents at committee and my gagging to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Last week the Best Value Notice was allowed to lapse by government. Unless the governance of the authority is reformed that will be seen as a precipitate move...

In the meantime, I would ask members to hold the senior officials and their chair to account in order to maintain public trust. As much as the Nolan principles apply to the senior officers and the elected chair, they also apply to elected members of this committee.

Please like and retweet etc without prejudice