Memorandum by Gordon Mussett, Town Clerk
to Haverhill Town Council (STA 05)
1. This evidence is submitted by Gordon
Mussett, Town Clerk to Haverhill Town Council.
2. I have served in local government since
1970, and in Parish/Town Councils since 1982, and welcomed the
creation of the Standards Board, and the introduction of a Model
Code of Conduct.
3. The Standards Board was very effective
in its promotion of the Code of Conduct, with ample supplies of
videos, brochures, and leaflets. However the introduction of the
Code failed to recognise the difficulties faced by Clerks in many
Parish Councils. In Parish Councils the Clerk has to "sell"
new legislation to the elected Councillors. Most times such a
process is easy, with everyone understanding the need for the
legislation. However, and I would include both the Code of Conduct
and the Accounts and Audit Regulations in this number, some legislation
is harder to "sell", particularly when those required
to implement it believe that they have always acted properly.
4. Although training sessions on the Model
Code were arranged by the National and County Associations of
Local Councils, many Councillors are unwilling to attend training
(on any subject), and in some counties the distances involved
in attending venues prohibited attendance. My Council, as part
of its risk assessment, has tried to promote attendance at training
sessions, but has failed dismally to achieve a 50% attendance.
5. Proposal—That attendance,
within one month of election, at a recognised training session
organised by the National Association of Local Councils (and funded
via Central Government) is obligatory for all "first-time"
Councillors.
6. Over time, guidance from the Standards
Board on the interpretation of the Code has evolved. Sadly, communication
of this evolving guidance has not been as comprehensive as communication
of the code itself. Recent updates seem to have been contained
to Monitoring Officers who have not always circulated it to Town/Parish
Clerks (eg recent guidance on dual-hatted Councillors).
7. Proposal—Issue updated
guidance no more frequently than three-monthly, and circulate
to every Council.
8. The introduction of a written Code gave
an unexpected opportunity for those "mischief-makers"
in the Community to "settle old scores" or to achieve
political gain. Whilst such persons are not plentiful, my own
Council has been the subject of a co-ordinated and sustained campaign
of allegations aimed at disrupting its ability to function.
9. Sadly the procedures and process of referral
for investigation, and the delays in commencing investigations
gave these "mischief-makers" ample opportunity to use
the Standards Board to achieve their aim of embarrassing Councillors.
Often the Councillor who had been reported, and referred for investigation,
read about it in the local press (courtesy of a press release
from the "mischief-maker") before receiving confirmation
from the Standards Board.
10. Proposal—That all complaints
to the Standards Board are copied to those Councillors being reported
before determining whether to refer for investigation.
11. Councillors who were under investigation
received letters advising them not to confer with anyone other
than a Solicitor or representative. This left them unable to respond
to the "mischief-maker" in the public domain.
12. Proposal—That once a complaint
has been referred for investigation all parties are required not
to make public comment on it.
13. The time from initial referral to commencement
of the investigation has been overlong, with some Councillors
waiting over six months. For those ultimately found guilty, this
gives them too long to continue breaching the Code. For the innocent,
it can be a stressful time.
14. Whilst the Standards Board has now realised
that it will be used by vexatious persons, greater consultation
should have taken place with other monitoring agencies to establish
how to recognise, and deal with, such persons. In my Council the
Standards Board accepted more than 50 complaints before there
seemed to be acknowledgement that something was wrong.
15. Proposal—That for persons
submitting more than two complaints in one year a check is made
with other agencies, including the police, to establish whether
the complainant is known to be vexatious.
16. The process of determining whether to
refer needs review. Many of the complaints referred for investigation
in my Council could have been dismissed if, for example, the Standards
Board had asked for a copy of the minutes, or a copy of legal
opinion obtained by the Council. Instead, considerable time, and
effort, has been devoted to investigating complaints.
17. Proposal—Involve the Town
or Parish Clerk at an early stage prior to determining whether
to refer for investigation.
18. Whilst publicly championing that the
Standards Board would protect Town and Parish Clerks from bullying,
during 2003 my experience was that it concentrated on other priorities.
Greater recognition needs to be given to complaints from employees,
especially where these relate to bullying and/or inappropriate
conduct towards them by Councillors. Most employees will think
long and hard before exposing themselves further by making a public
complaint to the Standards Board, and recognise that failure of
a complaint is likely to lead to increased bullying or their engineered
dismissal. My complaint to the Standards Board (which was dismissed
but has since been acknowledged to being "one which would
be investigated if it came in today") brought in its wake
11 complaints about my conduct from that Councillor, and countless
public criticisms (which continue today). However my experience
means that I will not make another complaint about this Councillor's
conduct, however extreme, and has tailored the views of my fellow
Clerks who are aware of my situation.
19. Proposal—Fast-track all
complaints from employees.
| 
