Memorandum by N B Sanders (STA 09)
1. The Standards Board Annual Report admits
the need for readily understood and acceptable standards in public
office. "Who will bell the cat?" The current system
is biased, dishonest and undemocratic. There is a need for frequently
rotating non establishment persons to the Standards Board to input
the real world of the 21st Century. The average person will never
believe the unelected creators of today's out of touch unreal
culture would or could change it. Plain commonsense could transform
the Standards Board from an unaccountable draconian body to a
respected guidance authority.
2. A second real need is an independent
body or avenue of appeal for those affected by Board frolics within
reach of the "average Councillor". Monitoring officers
advise complainants, that deprives others of impartial in house
legal advice. The single avenue of appeal to the High Court cannot
be harnessed without massive financial and professional support
that very few Councillors can afford.
3. The unique power of an Ethical Standards
Officer to compel statements with a penalty of £1,000 (jail
in default), with the intention of using such statements as evidence
in a trial involving punishment is contrary to Saunders v UK (EHCR).
Board records show very few accused Councillors attend Tribunals.
There is widespread lack confidence in the impartiality of any
legal process that relies on evidence obtained under duress. The
Board and Tribunal deny the accused opportunity to examine the
veracity of their evidence, put simply that is discrimination
not applied to the average Citizen of the Realm, thereby depriving
Councillors of a fair trial.
4. The Board accept or reject complaints
in secret without any reference to the accused or recourse to
external independent review. This is aggravated by a legal team
supporting mainly legal Ethical Standards Officers both funded
by the taxpayer. For Justice to be done and seen to be done Members
under investigation should be provided with equal specialist legal
advice available to the Board and Tribunal.
5. The Tribunal and Board change rules and
procedures at will, this delivers variable inconsistent decisions.
Researching "Case precedent" is so confusing and contradictory
it is impossible to define acceptable conduct to avoid the trauma
of Ethical Standards Officers intruding into what is all too often
the private life of Councillors.
6. When challenged on evidential or procedural
matters the Board alter documents contrary to the Forgery Act
1981. Further challenge elicits quite different reasons and decisions
to the same question. Such deception cannot be brought before
the Courts because the LGA2000 grants Board employees immunity
from legal action.
7. The majority statements to support or
reject complaints are written by Ethical Standard Officers using
telephone only interviews, they do not record their questions,
thus half story statements despatched by post for signature are
misleading and likely to prompt witnesses. This is compounded
by a unique Board interpretation of County and Criminal Court
rules, whereby a single source uncorroborated allegation is deemed
to be corroborated by any second or subsequent witness that repeats
verbatim or acts upon the original uncorroborated allegation.
8. Councillors are not permitted to deliver
a defence report to the Tribunal concurrent with the Ethical Standards
Officer (prosecution) report. The accused is restricted to commenting
on the Standards Board report which is subject to Board censorship.
Failing to comment on the Board (prosecution) report prior to
the date of the Tribunal is deemed total acceptance of the prosecution
report. Thereafter Examining witnesses, independent evidence,
and supporting documents, are prohibited at the live Tribunal
hearing. This contravenes part 1 Article 6 of the EHRC.
9. Local Councils' are compelled to include
undefined wide ranging offences in the Code of Conduct by Statutory
Instrument 2001 No 3575. This contravenes Peterborough City Council
Standing Orders which states the Council will comply with the
European Human Rights Convention. HM Government also frequently
declare all domestic law shall be construed as complying with
EHCR. Sadly, the LGA200O contravenes one or all of Schedule 1
part 1 Article 6, 8, 10, and, 14 of the European Human Rights
Convention enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998.
10. New and alternative sanctions are necessary
to support the LGA 2000. Suspension rejects the will of the electorate
expressed at the ballot box and any subsequent by-election excluding
a disbarred Councillor deprives electors' freedom to vote for
a person of their choice. Accordingly, suspension contravenes
Part 2 Article 3 of the European Human Rights Convention.
11. Quite apart from the Human Rights Act,
Councillors past, present and future request the Committee to
define unacceptable conduct to remove today's uncertainty and
injustice. By way of example, personal one to one discussion in
or at domestic dwellings regarding matters beyond the scope and
authority of a Local Council can under present rules lead to allegations
of "bringing a Public Office into disrepute", such intrusion
is unacceptable in a democracy.
12. The Board annual report shows a frontline
cost of £8,000,000, to this must be added a like amount by
others. It doesn't need the brain of Britain to calculate the
58 cases referred to the Adjudication panel cost a minimum of
£100,000 each. The annual report also proves 90% of the Board
workload is a waste of time and taxpayers' money.
13. It is not beyond the wit of Parliament
through the Select Committee to devise a constitutional cost effective
scheme to deliver open honest local government. The most damaging
failing of the Standards Board is dishonesty and inconsistency.
N B Sanders
A Former Leader Peterborough Unitary Authority
| 
