Friday, February 06, 2009

And the Standards Board lets the third councillor off

I am somewhat speechless really

Three councillors reported to the Standards Board of England (not by me, I should point out)

All LibDems

All representing Wavertree ward, Liverpool, where I live

One for being found guilty of an offence against the Representation of the People Act and two for getting together, at home, with a drink, with an officer of the council who was at that time taking the authority to a tribunal for constructive dismissal if I recall correctly, and asking him to help them to get another officer sacked.

And none of them have been held responsible for their actions by the Standards Board of England, set up following the Nolan review into Standards in Public Life.

Apparently, according to the Daily Post and Echo, the Standards Board have said that "Cllr Bradley had on one occasion been "unwise and possibly naive", and his conduct "occasionally suggested lack of good judgement" in the wake of the Mathew Street Festival cancellation in 2007.

But it concluded he had not acted maliciously and said no further action should be taken into allegations he had bullied another person, failed to treat others with respect, and brought his office or authority into disrepute."

The report itself, according to the Post says "While some of Councillor Bradley’s actions could be said to have damaged his personal reputation, for conduct to be disreputable to a member’s office or authority there must, in the ethical standards officer’s view, generally be some additional element pointing to a lapse in standards, such as an improper motive, unlawfulness, the hope of personal gain or gratuitously offensive behaviour."

I wonder what you have to do in order for the Standards Board to look unfavourably upon you?

It seems that delivering leaflets accusing an opposition councillor of being a secret lap-dancer and calling her husband a scab (and forgetting the imprint!! practically a treasonable offence when LibDems are reporting me to the Elections Office for cocking up my imprint last year) is not worth the attention of the Standards Board.

And now neither is bullying a senior council officer out of office, resulting in having to pay him a reported massive £230,000 to keep the matter out of the courts after he complained about said bullying, asking other officers to help to get rid of him, and meeting an officer for a drink and a chat, who was concurrently taking the council to a tribunal are not problems either.

(written in a personal capacity as a tax payer of Liverpool city council - and absolutely without malicious intent!! Any critical comments will be published as long as they are not gratuitously rude)

5 comments:

Peter Cranie said...

I still think this will make the pages of Private Eye. Three councillors and three Standards Board enquiries in one ward.

Anonymous said...

I realise the Labour Group are upset by this. After all, you thought that a couple of by-elections in Wavertree would be your big chance to get rid of the Lib Dems.

But face up to it. They were found innocent under a system presumes councillors guilty and with non of the usual safeguards people would expect from a tribunal. Don't forget this is a system your MPs set up, but aren't willing to apply to themselves!

Get over it! You have had your fun for 18 months, but it's a dead issue.

scouseboy said...

So fireman sam is innocent... OK, we have to accept the decision of the standards board.
However, in the words of the standards board report: "Cllr. Bradley's conduct occasionally suggested lack of good judgement."
And in fireman sam's OWN words:"it had been unwise and possibly naive to have a (clandestine-not his word, but mine!!) meeting with a council officer (Lee Forde)
Given the above reflections on Cllr. Bradley's judgement and naivety, is he the right and proper person to lead Liverpool City Council?

Louise Baldock said...

Hey, hello Councillor Anonymous, represents a ward in the Wavertree constituency, how are you.

You dont need to tell me to get over it, I got over it a very long time ago. Some of us can see the writing on the wall long before the paint has dried.

However, I have been even more comfortable and confident having read the article in the Echo today. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2009/02/06/warren-bradley-my-conscience-is-clear-but-i-was-naive-100252-22870487/

I have taken particular note that Warren said in his interview

“I learned at an early age being in a team you’re not always going to be best friends with all of them. But I think out of our 46 members, there are people who want to move the city forward.

“I was under real pressure during the leadership election, but in the end I came through that on the first ballot. I’m the person to lead the group.”

It is the LibDems who have to get over it, not us residents of Wavertree ward, we already know what the lasting taste in our mouth is over these three standards board investigations

But what the LibDem group makes of this criticism of themselves, is really their own affair.

I hope you all know whether you are in or out of the divided group that Warren describes. Personally I like to think of you as the "26" and the "20" which must make it hard, particularly as none of you are deemed good enough to replace councillor Hurst.

And you must all now be wondering whether you are one of the few that are deemed by Warren to be taking the city forward, or, alternatively, one that is holding it back.

The Labour Group, conversely, is very happy. We are the "39" which conveniently equals the number of members in our group, totally united.

If "naive" Warren with the splintered group and the forced U-turns is happy with the result, then I am happy.

Let the people decide which group they prefer.

Love from
"Over it" Baldock

steve faragher said...

Makes you wonder what you'd have to do to get some sort of punishment doled out. Dead body, smoking gun, fingerprints on trigger maybe? Burning building, can of petrol, box of matches, singed eyebrows, dunno.....