Newcastle Evening Chronicles Hannah Graham.

Here in the North we have some of the best reporter/writers imaginable and few have such a masterly or is that mistressly grasp of the English language than the Newcastle Evening Chronicles Hannah Graham.

She has written an article entitled ‘Operator lined up for seven-screen cinema venture‘. Her extremely well scribed piece contains all of the clues one would expect from a top crime writer whilst allowing those who like to absorb her articles from the page to believe that Advance Northumberland formerly ARCH have found a company to help resolve the ‘Ashington Hole’ problems for the Council.

As and avid Agatha Christie fan I have decided to try to take all the clues and put them into blogging order as my English language skills are nowhere near the brilliance of Hannah’s but I may be able to decipher what is actually happening and what the ‘Secret Council‘ Is doing with your Public money.

Clue 1.    ‘Operator’ is not an owner, investor or developer, it’s a code word for a tenant.

Clue 2.    Advance Northumberland is the Councils development company that we find is even more secretive than its predecessor ARCH.

Clue 3.    £5.53m cost of scrapping previous plans, Galliford Try, was paid £5,530,000 to pull out of a contract to develop a new office block for the Council that would house 900 workers in a town centre that is sited at the head of a rail link that will have a direct connection to Newcastle central station, a through ticketing system with Tyne and Wear metro, developing a public transport link with Newcastle international airport. Ideally placed, this office block would have regenerated the town of Ashington through the planned massive rise in footfall.

Clue 4.    Northumberland County Council set aside a £4.6m loan to its company Advance Northumberland to build a publicaly owned cinema with ratepayers money and rent it to an Operator, effectively buying in a service.

To clarify the ratepayers money reference I have placed the link below to Councillor Oliver’s statement to his Cabinet recently where he clearly indicates the Council has stopped borrowing. Therefore one can only conclude that £4.6m is to be removed from Council ratepayers reserves.

Clue 5.    A grant of £3m is to be provided to Advance Northumberland to develop a Cinema food court. The Council and Advance have not released the cost analysis or local impact assessment on the businesses already sited in the Town. What does it say and why is it not in the public arena? Or may I be so bold as to ask, on surrounding towns?

In summing up, the Ashington Whole Group have asked some valid questions and I’m sure Hannah Graham will make a great job of reporting their thoughts following the public consultation on 17th July at Ashington Leisure Centre, next door to this site. I expect local traders from Ashington and similar representative groups from the businesses in Bedlington, Blyth and Morpeth to press their points home and demand to see the impact assessments on their areas.

So we have a Council exposing serious levels of reserve public cash on a building project for an industry that is renowned for the effects competition has on it, being developed in an area plagued with an epidemic of low wages sitting beside a food court that will affect spending in surrounding towns just to prevent a sustainable and value added Council office project from taking place on this site in future!

Northumbria PCC Election Kim is the only valid candidate

What a busy day it was yesterday, with Northumberland Conservatives Leader Cllr Peter Jackson and his closest henchmen, attempting to censor all stories and photographs linking the dubious independent candidate Georgina Hill with her Tory supporters from both the North and mid-Northumberland in order that they are not made to look like the fools they are in the eyes of the rest of the regions Tory members by promoting Robbie Moore;

Then we have the LibDem candidate Johnathon Wallace showing off by trying to destroy the PCC set up for the future in order that he gets a shot at the Berwick Parliamentary seat now that the Tories are losing the confidence of their mainstay voters, means that the Labour Candidate Kim McGuinness who's first press release included "The Tories are more concerned with fighting among themselves than making sure our police force have the funds they need to get more cops on the street and keep our communities safe." are the only true words that's been said in this campaign so far, is the only valid candidate in this election.

Ms Georgina Hill the never practicing barrister and ex-Tory press secretary is running on the ticket of 'there's no place for party politics in the PCC' and yet has been shown in a number of photographs living it up with Northumberland Conservatives and on the official Conservative Borderlands Combined Authority press shots clearly has the support of many of her ex pals, leaving Peter Jackson in the lurch as his members desert Robbie for Georgina.

Its well reported on social media that Jackson has been apoplectic and at the Tory Group meeting before Council today,  will, were sure, bully those who have been assisting him to lose face across the region. Hill of course has shown over the last two years how loyal she is to Jackson and her constant attacks against ARCH from her position as the trusted Chair of Audit were blown completely out of the water when Northumbria Police and the external auditor found no criminality in the Council owned company. She poisoned the brand so much even its new Tory derivative Advance Northumberland is suffering the plague she spawned.  Now that her job is done its just another woman to be cast aside by a rich Tory farmer.

We must watch the live video of the Council meeting and see the false faces painted onto the Cabinet members to cover their embarrassment.
 

Tories Fail to Consult on the ‘Privatisation’ of Physiotherapy Services in Northumberland

As most people know the NHS in Northumberland shares its top officers with Northumberland County Council. They are intrinsically linked and of course politically managed and manipulated.

What most of you won’t know as they are very good at hiding the facts through their ‘secretisation’ program, is that the Tories in Northumberland are hell bent on privatising all services in both the Council and its NHS partners.

The former LibDem now Independent Councillor for Rothbury , Steven Bridgett has brought this next matter to the attention of Northumberland’s residents and we are only too happy to assist him in reaching a wider audience.
Thanks Steven.

Contact your local Councillor to let them know about this and how it might affect you.
 

’Physiotherapy Services in Northumberland’.

I wanted to update residents who might not be aware of the fact that the Physiotherapy Services in Northumberland are being privatised.
Sorry! Northumberland Clinical Commissioning Group's preferred word: "Partnership".
The new 'service' will see up to a 50% reduction of existing staff and the reduction/removal of services in places like Rothbury, Wooler, Belford, Berwick, Alnwick, Amble, Morpeth and Ashington.
I have already received correspondence from some residents, telling me that patients who would usually receive physiotherapy in Rothbury, are being 'encouraged' to access the services in other places such as Alnwick.
Sound familiar?!
It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that many of the people who access this service are elderly and given the poor and very unreliable public transport service to Alnwick, it makes accessing the service, for them, that little bit more difficult.
The new service will see the removal of the Hartford unit, which has developed into a first class service for the rehab of patients post orthopaedic surgery.
The worst thing about this whole process though is the fact that the Northumberland Clinical Commissioning Group has clearly learnt nothing from the damning report by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel for the Secretary of State for Health, into their failure to properly consult on the removal of the beds at Rothbury Hospital and hasn't even bothered to formally consult with residents on what is a removal of part of the service and a significant reduction in staffing levels.
"As part of the procurement process, the CCG carried out a period of engagement to provide patients and GPs with an opportunity to comment on how the new service should be designed."
Do you remember seeing anything as part of this 'engagement' period?
I have requested that the Health and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the council, investigate the reduction in service and if it is their view that the CCG has once again failed to formally consult on the matter, they can refer the matter to the Secretary of State and the Independent Reconfiguration Panel.’

 

Could you find a better advocate?

This comment piece has to begin with by dispelling a myth regularly spread by extreme right wing letter writers who express very strong opinions that drags down those who give their time free of charge to help their communities, local parish Councillors.

The myth is that the marketplace alterations in the town of Blyth cost Blyth Valley Council and therefore Blyth Valley residents £3m. Rubbish!

This item was debated at a group our small team attend from time to time and some research has been undertaken by students interested in local politics, what they found was interesting.

They found that the market place project was overseen and financially managed by ONE with European funds. The project was offered to Blyth Valley as it was heading towards closure and its responsibilities handed over to a new County unitary Council as a Durham Council ONE expected to take the project didn’t have any plans in place, Blyth Valley did.

At a difficult time for local government accountants, the final half year accounts of Blyth Valley did show the expenditure but when the students looked at the archived accounts, an interim authority was formed which shows the cash being paid in to cover off the costs with European funding.

So the brilliant public space in the centre of Northumberland’s largest town did not cost Blyth Valley residents a single penny.

Currently Blyth Town have a highly intelligent campaigning Labour Mayor, Warren Taylor, who is extremely proud of the market place and the whole town. He has entered the public arena following a series of very nice Civic Mayors and has shown he means business. His council is slightly in shock that their mayor is extremely willing to promote his town and use his time not only to attend civic functions but to challenge his residents to think about their town and grasp the opportunities that are just around the corner.

Research has shown larger East Coast towns like Blyth have suffered and have run down quicker than their smaller neighbours primarily due to the offshoring of work and the loss of traditional industry such as mining and shipbuilding throughout the 1980’s and haven’t yet recovered from the last decades financial crisis through the lack of quality jobs and the high numbers of families relying on minimum wage employment.

Warren and his Council who get no real help from their Tory County Council are tackling the issues of town centre improvements through working with partners to improve the local environment with the Town Council paying for grass cutting and cleansing along with their standard functions with the County Council responsible for the failed weeding of your streets.

Mr Taylor, your a refreshing change from what we are used too and we’re sure you will succeed and defy the detractors who want to run down your town and your politics.

Are we heading towards a
Police and ‘Criminals’ Commissioner

a five minute read that is well worth the time:

On July 18^th 2019 voters across Tyne and Wear and Northumberland, will go to the polls to elect a replacement for the Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner Vera Baird who has taken a post to become the nations Victims Commissioner. The candidates are an interesting bunch, they are
Georgina Hill                        Independent
Kim McGuinness                 Labour Party

Robbie Moore                       Conservative Party
Jonathon Wallace               Liberal Democrats

Robbie Moore the Conservative candidate was publically shown up on social media and was reported to the Councils Standards Board when he voted to remove Northumberland County Council’s planning core strategy from inspection by Government at that time he was employed by an Estate Agent from Alnwick, George F White, who published this statement on his web site immediately after the vote

Interesting in the fact that two of them don’t have clean hands when it comes to politics in the Northumbria Police Area.

Robbie Moore the Conservative candidate was publically shown up on social media and was reported to the Councils Standards Board when he voted to remove Northumberland County Council’s planning core strategy from inspection by Government at that time he was employed by an Estate Agent from Alnwick, George F White, who published this statement on his web site immediately after the vote

  As a highly regarded associate of George F. White it seems inconceivable that Councillor Moore was not aware that his decision to vote on the removal of the core strategy would be likely to benefit the company and as such weaken the decision-making process of the council. The final sentence of Mr Moore’s own pen pic on the George F. White website is telling “Robert understands the need to take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves.”

He should have declared an interest and left the meeting, Should he represent you as your PCC?

The ‘Independent’ candidate Georgina Hill is even more interesting. She was a Tory who was employed by Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP.

She had to leave that post after being found guilty of being a bully by the Councils Standards Board.

Her bullying qualities have been used by the Tories since May 2017, they placed her into the position of Chair of Audit, normally a position of trust, where she has ran a series of attacks against the Councils Company ARCH, made statements regarding criminal activities at that company which Northumbria Police dispelled and found no criminality at all.

She outrageously openly questioned the Chief Constable at a videoed Council meeting about collusion between Council members and the outgoing PCC that she suggested could have coloured the outcome of the investigation. The Chief Constable calmly disillusioned her.

The outcome of her standards board is a public document and has been reproduced below:
Northumberland County Council

Standards Committee

Decision Notice

Dated: 21^st August 2015


Member Complaint Reference:       NCC 05/14, NCC 06/14, NCC 07/14

Subject Member:                              Cllr G Hill of Berwick upon Tweed Town Council

Subject Member’s                             Mr D Bawn, Partner, Gibson & Co. Solicitors
Representative:

Complainants:                                   Mr G Jones
Ms S Finch

Chairman of Standards                    Mr J Jackson, Independent Chairman
Committee:

Members of Committee in               Cllr D Parker (Parish Council representative), Cllr A
attendance:                                        Tebbutt, Cllr C Homer, Cllr E Armstrong, Cllr C Rawlings (Parish Council representative), Cllr D Buckle
(Parish Council representative), Cllr P Kelly, Cllr L Pidcock, Cllr E Burt

Other persons present:                   Mrs J Common, Independent Person

Monitoring Officer:                           Mr L Henry, Legal Services Manager, Northumberland County Council

Investigating Officer:                        Ms C Burrows, Governance Solicitor, Durham County Council

Committee Clerk:                              Mrs L Bennett

Date of hearing:                                18^th and 19^th August 2015

Place of hearing:                               Committee Room 1, County Hall, Morpeth, Northumberland


 

1. Hearing

On 18^th and 19^th August 2015, the Standards Committee (‘the Committee’) of this authority considered complaints from Mr G Jones and Ms S Finch, former Town Clerk of Berwick upon Tweed Town Council concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor Georgina Hill, a member of Berwick upon Tweed Town Council.
 

2. Summary of complaints

It was alleged:-

 

1. That Councillor Hill disclosed confidential information at a meeting of the Town Council on 23^rd September 2013 by disclosing details associated with a “Press and Public Excluded” section of the Council’s Finance and Resources Committee meeting of 16^th September 2013. It was further alleged that a misleading report was given to a national newspaper about this confidential item. 

 

2. That Councillor Hill was aware that she had disclosed something that she should not

have as, during the Finance and Resources Committee on 18^th November 2013, the Finance and Resources Committee on 16^th December 2013 and the Town Council meeting on 20^th January 2014, Councillor Hill attempted to get the minutes of the Finance and Resources Committee meeting of 16^th September 2013 changed.  It was further alleged that Councillor Hill was pressuring other Councillors to change the minutes of the Finance and Resources Committee meeting of 16^th September 2013 to cover up her conduct.

 

3. That when trying to get the minutes changed, Councillor Hill had both a personal and

a prejudicial interest in the confidential matter from 4^th October 2013, if not prior to that date, on the basis that Councillor Hill’s half sibling Andrew Marshall corresponded with Mr Lord of Arch on 4^th October 2013 and offered his services to the Town Council and to Arch.

 

4. That Councillor Hill may have bombarded officers with correspondence relating to

allegations, investigations and formal proceedings some of which was disrespectful, unnecessary and in places appeared to defame the Town Clerk.  The Complainant alleged that the amount of correspondence initiated by Councillor Hill may have breached the Code of Conduct in relation to resources being used in accordance with requirements given how much resource appears to have been devoted to Councillor Hill’s campaign.  Further, it was alleged that an e-mail sent to the Town Clerk was copied to all councillors on 27^th September 2013 by Councillor Hill which referred to a grievance and it was alleged that this should have been treated as a confidential staffing matter between Councillor Hill, the Town Clerk and the Staffing Committee.  It was alleged that Councillor Hill’s repetitive, relentless allegations, requests for investigations, threats if proceedings and campaign against the Town Clerk has exhibited conduct unbefitting of office.

 

5. That Councillor Hill had carried out a sustained attack of the Town Clerk, the Town

Council and a number of Town Councillors on Facebook on 29^th May 2014.  It was alleged that this was an attempt by Councillor Hill to disrupt the Town Council’s credibility and the Town Council’s capability of fulfilling its obligations to the people of Berwick.

 

6. That Councillor Hill obtained information from a Town Council Staffing Committee

Meeting which she knew to be confidential and placed this information on Social Media.

 

7. That Councillor Hill, at the Events Committee meeting of the Council on 8^th July 2013,

declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 12 (applications for financial assistance, Tweedmouth Feast Crowning and Carnival Committee).  It was alleged that Councillor Hill’s Register of Interests stated that she has an Appendix B interest but does not show that she had a discloseable pecuniary interest (“DPI”) and therefore having stated that she had a DPI Councillor Hill should have registered this new interest with the Monitoring Officer within 28 days of becoming aware of it and she has not done so.

 

8. That Councillor Hill dealt with a matter in which she had an interest by liaising with

the Council’s Finance Officer in relation to the grant for financial assistance for the Tweedmouth Feast agreed by the Council to the Crowning and Carnival Committee of which she is a member. 

 

9. That Councillor Hill had demonstrated in public at Council meetings and on social

media that she had no respect for the democratic process or Code of Conduct. 

 

10. That Councillor Hill had shown that she had no respect for the Council’s Protocol on

Bullying and Harassment, or the Council’s Protocol on Member/Officer Relations.

 

11. That Councillor Hill had shown no respect for the Protocol on Communications

because articles to the press contain inaccurate and malicious material and she had failed to state that her views are personal and not those of the Council.

 

12. That Councillor Hill had no respect for the Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure

having disclosed confidential details to the press and on social media.

 

13. That Councillor Hill showed a lack of respect to her fellow Councillors by a publication

on her Facebook page on 27^th May 2014.

 

14. That Councillor Hill had exhibited bullying behaviour towards the Town Clerk in public

at meetings, in correspondence direct with the Clerk and with other members which has amounted to harassment, in the national press and on social media.  It was alleged that this bullying behaviour had been demonstrated by Councillor Hill who had:-

 

1. Questioned the validity and status of decisions relating to delegated powers suggesting it had not been properly made.
2. Announced publicly at least two meetings that she had approached other Town Councils for advice and information on how they run their Council.
3. Maintained that the Town Clerk’s notes of the Strategy and Policy Working Group meeting on 4^th September 2013 were inaccurate.
4. Sent 207 e-mails to the Town Clerk between May to November 2013 inclusive, 27 of which related to the confidential item in the Finance and Resources Committee meeting of 16^th September 2013.

 

15. That Councillor Hill had disclosed private information regarding disciplinary and

grievance matters being considered by the Town Council and personal and confidential information about the Town Clerk’s sick leave.
     
 

16. That Councillor Hill posted on her Facebook page on 18^th June 2014, details from

reports by independent investigator Norman Dunn which included an erroneous statement “that a case to answer has been established and that it is sufficiently serious and should progress to a formal disciplinary investigation” when in fact Norman Dunn stated in his report “it is believed there is a possible case to answer”.  It was alleged that Mr Dunn sent an e-mail on 30^th January 2014 stating “this report is to remain confidential throughout the process and I suggest it remains confidential after the process is complete,” that he stated within his conclusion that the report should be issued confidentially and that every page within the report is marked “confidential”.




 

3. Relevant paragraph(s) of Berwick upon Tweed Town Council’s Code of Conduct

The following is an extract from the relevant provisions of the Code of Conduct:

Preamble - the Code applies whenever you (a) conduct the business of the Council (including the business of your office as an elected Councillor or co-opted member) or (b) act, claim to act or give the impression you are acting as a representative of the Council.

Paragraph 1 - He/ she shall behave in such a way that a reasonable person would regard as respectful.

Paragraph 2 - He/ she shall not act in a way which a reasonable person would regard as bullying or intimidatory.

Paragraph 3 – He/ she shall not behave in a manner which a reasonable person would regard as likely to bring the Council, or his/ her office as a member of the Council, into disrepute.

Paragraph 5 – He/ she shall use the resources of the Council in accordance with its requirements.

Paragraph 6 – He/ she shall not disclose information which is confidential or where disclosure is prohibited by law.

Paragraph 9 – A member shall register with the Monitoring Offer any change to interest or new interests in Appendices A and B within 28 days of becoming aware of it.

Paragraph 15 – Where a matter arises at a meeting which relates to a financial interest of a friend, relative or close associate (other than an interest in Appendix A), the member:
 

1. shall disclose the nature of the interest
2. may speak on the matter only if members of the public are also allowed to speak at the meeting
3. shall not vote on the matter.

If it is a ‘sensitive interest’ the member shall declare the interest but not the nature of the interest.

Paragraph 16 – If a Council function can be discharged by the member acting alone, and he/ she is aware that they have an interest in Appendices A or B, he/ she shall not deal with that matter except to enable the matter to be dealt with by someone else.

 

4. Summary of evidence considered by the Committee

Evidence was considered from the following sources:-

 

1. Investigating Officer’s Report dated 13^th March 2015
2. Bundle of documents supplementary to Investigating Officer’s Report
3. Witness statements of:

• Cllr G Hill
• Mr B Darling
• Cllr T Forrester
• Cllr C Seymour
• Mr A Marshall
• Mr D SpencerBarclay
• Cllr K Graham
• Mr N Dunn

 

4. Witness summaries of:

• Ms S Finch
• Mr G Jones

5. Verbal evidence of:

• Ms S Finch
• Mr G Jones
• Cllr C Seymour
• Mr B Darling
• Cllr K Graham
• Mr A Marshall
• Cllr T Forrester
• Mr D SpencerBarclay
• Cllr G Hill

In addition to the evidence considered by the Committee oral representations were made by both Councillor Hill’s representative and the Investigating Officer 

 

5. Committee’s principal findings of fact including the reasons for them

 

1. In respect of the publications by Councillor Hill on Facebook contained in screen

dumps dated 29^th May 2014 and 18^th June 2014, the Committee finds that Councillor Hill did allude to the Town Clerk’s grievance, the Town Clerk’s sick leave, provided extracts of the confidential report of Mr Dunn’s investigation into Councillor Hill’s complaint, gave details relating to disciplinary and grievance matters being considered by the Council relating to the Town Clerk and raised issues regarding the Town Clerk’s performance and that the information contained in those postings had been obtained by Councillor Hill in confidence in connection with her duties as a Town Councillor.

 

2. Again in respect of publications by Councillor Hill on Facebook, the Committee finds

that Councillor Hill likened the Council to North Korea in her comments on 27^th March 2014 and referred to fellow councillors as “rogue” and “manipulated” in her comments on 29^th May 2014.

 

3. That Councillor Hill commented in the Independent on Sunday on 5^th January 2014

alluding to corruption within the Council by stating “What is quite often happening in town councils is a town clerk and a civil servant making decisions without the necessary checks and balances that you used to have. There is some extreme low-level corruption going on and people getting away with making decisions behind closed doors that you would never get away with in Parliament.”

 

4. That Councillor Hill was not responsible for the comment on the Berwick Town

Council Public Voice Facebook page on 28^th May 2014 saying “What would the public think if the police and the fraud squad made a visit to our Town Council” accepting her evidence in this regard that she was not responsible for, or in control of, that particular Facebook page.

 

5. That there was insufficient evidence to definitively determine that there was collusion

between other Town Councillors and/or Ms Finch or behaviour which might be considered to constitute bullying of Councillor Hill from those same Town Councillors and/or Ms Finch designed to suppress the actions of Councillor Hill in carrying out her duties as a Town Councillor. There may have been differences of opinion, forcibly expressed at times perhaps in what may have been a difficult environment for the Subject Member, but nothing that would suggest collusion and/or bullying.   


 

6. That there was insufficient evidence to definitively determine that Ms Finch’s conduct

or behaviour and performance in carrying out her duties as Town Clerk was of a nature that could be considered to be unacceptable to a reasonable employer.

 

7. That the reports commissioned by the Town Council from Mr N Dunn and Mr P

Cameron were of an independent and objective nature and raised no issues of bias.

 

8. The Committee were invited by the Investigating Officer to make a finding of fact as

to whether Ms Finch gave an apology to Mr A Marshall with regard to a remark she made in a meeting with him but the Committee concluded that there was no conclusive evidence either way on this issue and determined that they would not make any finding regarding the issue which, in any event, they did not consider to be of any direct significant relevance to their consideration of the totality of the complaints.    

 

6. Committee’s findings as to whether the Subject Member failed to follow the Code including reasons for that finding

 

1. The Committee finds that the Subject Member has failed to comply with the following paragraphs of Berwick upon Tweed Town Council Members’ Code of Conduct:-

 

1. Paragraph 1
2. Paragraph 2
3. Paragraph 3
4. Paragraph 6

 

2. The Committee finds that the Subject Member has not failed to comply with the following paragraphs of Berwick upon Tweed Town Council Members’ Code of Conduct:-

 

1. Paragraph 5
2. Paragraph 9
3. Paragraph 15
4. Paragraph 16

The detail and reasons for those findings are as follows:-

 

1. That at all relevant times during the course of events referred to in the summary of allegations above, the Subject Member had been acting in her official capacity including when she gave the interview to the Independent on Sunday newspaper when she ought reasonably have known that it was likely that a member of public reading the newspaper article would have considered that she was acting in her capacity as a Councillor. As a consequence her authority’s Code of Conduct had applied to her at those times.

 

2. That the Subject Member failed to treat the former Town Clerk, Ms Finch, with respect contrary to paragraph 1 of the Berwick upon Tweed Town Council Members’ Code of Conduct in relation to her publications on Facebook evidenced in the screen dumps dated 29th May 2014 and 18th June 2014 and her comments in the Independent on Sunday on 5th January 2014 as detailed in the Committee’s findings of fact.

The Committee agreed with the reasoning in this regard provided by the Investigating
Officer in paragraph 6.4 of her report and, while concluding that there had perhaps been something of a delay on the part of the Town Council in dealing with the Subject Member’s concerns, the Committee felt that the authority had nonetheless commissioned the reports from Mr Dunn and Mr Cameron and they considered it unnecessary and unreasonable on the part of the Subject Member to take the actions that she took before those reports could be fully considered by the Town Council.  

With regard to the interview given by the Subject Member to the Independent on Sunday newspaper, the Committee considered that the Subject Member’s comments
as reported could reasonably have been interpreted as implying that the former
Town Clerk was corrupt, an allegation which had, the Subject Member conceded in evidence to the Committee, no foundation. The Committee agreed with the Investigating Officer that this was an attack on the former Town Clerk’s integrity. While the Committee did accept that the Subject Member might have meant to refer to another local council in the context of these comments they considered that she should have appreciated that it was likely that, given her position, they would be interpreted as referring also to the situation at Berwick. 

 

3. That the Subject Member bullied the former Town Clerk, Ms Finch, contrary to paragraph 2 of the Berwick upon Tweed Town Council Members’ Code of Conduct in relation to her behaviour towards Ms Finch which included publications on Facebook evidenced in the screen dumps dated 29^th May 2014 and 18^th June 2014 forming a pattern of public criticism which constitutes bullying and harassment.

The Committee again agreed with the reasoning as outlined by the Investigating Officer in her report at paragraph 6.5 in this regard and also felt that the postings were designed to undermine the former Town Clerk’s position and would have put her in fear of what further postings regarding her might follow, all of which were sufficient to enable the Committee to conclude that the former Town Clerk had been bullied by the Subject Member.

Having made a finding of fact that that there was insufficient evidence to definitively  determine behaviour on the part of other Town Councillors and/or Ms Finch which might be considered to constitute bullying of the Subject Member by those persons the Committee could, it felt, not find otherwise.

 

4. That the Subject Member conducted herself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing her Office and her authority into disrepute contrary to paragraph 3 of the Berwick upon Tweed Town Council Members’ Code of Conduct by virtue of the Facebook posts made on 27^th March 2014 likening the Town Council to North Korea and on the 29^th May 2014 with regards to “rogue” Councillors, and her comments as reported in the Independent on Sunday on 5^th January 2014.

The reasoning of the Investigating Officer in her report at paragraph 6.6 was again accepted by the Committee in this regard with the exception of the Facebook comment made on the 28^th May 2014 which the Committee accepts was not proven as being made by the Subject Member.

While the Committee accept that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 does give a high level of protection to comments that are genuinely made in the course of political debate, they felt that the comments made by the Subject Member, and particularly those in the Independent on Sunday, were entirely inappropriate and a slur on the reputation of the Town Council and an unjustified attack on the integrity of those persons directly associated with the authority including members and officers.        

 

5. That the Subject Member disclosed confidential information which was exempt information as defined by Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 contrary to paragraph 6 of the Berwick Town Council Members’ Code of Conduct. 

The Committee finds that Councillor Hill’s disclosures on Facebook evidenced in the screen dumps dated 29^th May 2014 and 18^th June 2014, details of which are given in the Committee’s findings of fact, were not of sufficient public interest that disclosure of the information outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption.

The Subject Member had conceded in evidence to the Committee that she had disclosed this information in the manner described and that it was of a confidential nature but that she was justified in doing so as she was afforded the protection of the Whistleblowing Policy adopted by the Town Council. The Committee took her arguments, and those advanced on her behalf by her representative into account in reaching their decision but concluded, nonetheless, that she could not legitimately claim protection under the Policy as they did not believe that the disclosures were reasonable in all the circumstances. The information disclosed was extensive and little or no thought appeared to have been given as to what the consequences of such disclosures would be, particularly in relation to the personal information relating to the former Town Clerk which the Committee considered to be of most importance given that person’s status as an employee of the Town Council.

In any event the Committee did not consider that any of the three pre-conditions in order to seek protection under the Policy had been met for the Policy to be applicable.

In this latter regard, the Committee did not consider that the Subject Member’s perception that she would be victimised if she raised the matter internally was a realistic one given their finding of fact in relation to the allegation from the Subject Member of collusion and bullying on the part of the other Town Councillors and/or the former Town Clerk. With regard to the other two pre-conditions there was a process with an independent input underway which, while delayed, had not been concluded which appeared to counter any suggestion that there was a reasonable belief on the part of the Subject Member that a cover up was likely or that she had already conclusively raised the matter internally.

 

6. That the Subject Member did not use Council resources beyond its requirements contrary to paragraph 5 of the Berwick upon Tweed Town Council Members’ Code of Conduct as a result of responding to the matters raised by her.

The Committee fully accept the reasoning of the Investigating Officer at paragraph 6.7 of her report in this regard.

 

7. That the Subject Member did not fail to register with the Monitoring Officer any change of interests or new interests in Appendices A and B within 28 days of becoming aware of this contrary to paragraph 9 of the Berwick upon Tweed Town Council Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of her alleged failure to register her role as a committee member of Tweedmouth Feast and Crowning Carnival Committee as a discloseable personal interest.

The Committee fully accept the reasoning of the Investigating Officer at paragraph 6.9 of her report in this regard.

 

8. That the Subject Member did not fail to comply with the provisions of paragraph 15 of the Berwick Town Council Members’ Code of Conduct in relation to her participation in a matter relating to her half-brother, Mr A Marshall.

The Committee fully accept the reasoning of the Investigating Officer at paragraph 6.10 of her report in this regard.

 

1. That the Subject Member did not deal with a matter in which she was aware that she had an interest as outlined in Appendices A and B of the Code when liaising with the Council’s Finance Officer in relation to the grant for financial assistance for the Tweed Mouth Feast contrary to paragraph 16 of the Berwick Town Council Members’ Code of Conduct.

The Committee fully accept the reasoning of the Investigating Officer at paragraph 6.11 of her report in this regard.

 

7. Action to be taken/ sanctions to be imposed

The Committee, having heard from the Subject Member’s representative, the Investigating Officer and the Independent Person on the issue resolved to impose the following sanctions:-

 

1. That it be recommended to Berwick upon Tweed Town Council that the Subject Member be issued with a formal censure by that authority.

 

2. That it be recommended to Berwick upon Tweed Town Council that the Subject Member be removed, and remain removed, from any position she currently holds as Chair or Vice Chair of all Committees and Sub Committees of that authority for a period of twelve months from the date of that authority agreeing any such sanction.

 

3. That it be recommended to Berwick upon Tweed Town Council that training be arranged for the Subject Member which shall include training in relation to the Members’ Code of Conduct and Bullying and Harassment.

 

4. That the findings of the Committee be referred to Berwick upon Tweed Town Council for their information.

Recommendations to the Subject Member’s Authority

The Committee, having heard from the Independent Person on the issue, resolved to make the following recommendation:-

 

1. That it be recommended to Berwick upon Tweed Town Council that training be arranged for all members of the authority in relation to the Members’ Code of Conduct and Bullying and Harassment.

Right of Appeal

There is no right of appeal from this decision which is final. 

Mr J Jackson 
Chairman
21^st August 2015


We now believe it’s a two horse race, unless Jonathon is also hiding his past?