Banner
underlay

plinth

m a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 any day today rss facebook twitter clear clear
According to Inspector Knacker, being unfriendly is a crime

Bonkers Blog March 2016

Index: 2012201320142015201620172018

To return from any entry to the top of this page, click any date on the left
To place a bookmark/anchor in the URL bar (for links), click the blog title
To read blogs from other years and months use the menu above
To change the text size click ‘AAA’ or Mobile icon on the menu above
To permanently change the text size click ‘Configure’ on the menu above

Old Farm


Doubt is cast on Bexley Council’s allegations against Councillor Maxine Fothergill.

8 March - Choose the simple option. Assume it’s a lie, it usually is

The blog below is one of several relating to Bexley Councillor Maxine Fothergill and Bexley Council’s Code of Conduct Committee. This note aims to make it clear that the events reported between December 2015 and the Summer of 2016 whilst accurate reflections of various events, disciplinary hearings and sanctions brought against Councillor Fothergill they are individually insufficient to explain the whole story.

Two members of the Bexley-is-Bonkers team met with Councillor Fothergill at a secret location on 16th September 2016 where she explained to us what had really happened. She was able to convince us that she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

There were compelling reasons why Councillor Fothergill should be believed. It seemed likely that the Tory High Command in Bexley had taken revenge on her because Councillor Fothergill had reported one of their associates to the police for theft.

Councillor Fothergill requested that the explanatory note prefixed to relevant blogs (which first went on line a few days earlier) be further strengthened so that readers are fully aware that reported events, whilst accurate at the time, did not reflect her innocence and that Bexley Council’s charge of misconduct and “gaining a financial advantage for herself” was malicious.

This is a modified version of the note Councillor Fothergill asked to be placed here.

Mr. Barnbrook is still trying to get straight answers to his questions which followed Councillor Fothergill’s ‘conviction’ for obtaining a financial advantage for herself, the punishment for which was not being able to sit on the Appeals Committee to which she might be tempted to appeal.

Whilst a couple of people have alleged that Councillor Fothergill has been known to live dangerously, there is still no evidence to suggest that the case against her at the Code of Conduct Committee was other than flimsy, totally lacking evidence or just a fit up.

One question that has been answered, albeit not satisfactorily, concerns the appointment of the Independent Person. One is required under the Localism Act passed in 2012.

Rebecca Sandhu was chosen for Bexley in 2013 after the position was advertised and following a selection process. The position was for a period of two years expiring in May 2015.

In 2015 there was no advertisement, there was no new selection process and there was no discussion in Council. The Independent Person was merely listed like this (see below) in a 28 Page Supplement to the 66 Page Agenda to the Council meeting held on 20th May 2015.

CommitteeProbably nobody noticed. You can elect or reject a councillor every four years. Independent Persons can go on for ever, in Bexley anyway, maybe not in honest boroughs.

Possibly not so easily explained is the decision to exclude members of the public from the Code of Conduct Committee on 10th December.

The Procedural Rules clearly state that the Members of the Committee must be given an opportunity to say whether of not they think the hearing should be in public or behind closed doors.

Then a decision has to be taken. Entirely logical.

However it is not what those who were present on 10th December say happened and the Minutes of the meeting make no reference to any discussion or vote on exclusion. Twice recently I have seen that happen at other meetings where the public might be excluded.

The procedure is that the Chairman says that an exclusion has been recommended by Council officers and asks for a vote in favour. It’s simple enough and insofar that anything is democratic in Bexley, this is.

However the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Committee didn’t do that. She saw the recommendation and the allegation is that she took it upon herself to exclude the public without asking other members. I wasn’t present.

In response to a complaint, Bexley Council has said (sic) “It is clear from the published agenda for the item in relation to the Exclusion of Press and Public preceded the item of substantive business to which the Rules of Procedure to which you refer applies.”

No one is disputing that, the exclusion obviously preceded the substantive business, otherwise the members of the public would have heard the complaint and the need to keep secrets would have gone.

The issue remains that Chairman Cheryl Bacon made no attempt to follow procedures, something for which she has form.

The exclusion vote is not only absent from the Agenda Item, it’s not in the Minutes and three members of the public know they didn’t hear their exclusion either proposed or debated.

Mr. Barnbrook is planning to escalate his complaint and the ensuing obfuscation to the Information Commissioner. I think it is far simpler to assume that Bexley Council is lying again as they always do when caught breaking their own rules or statutes.
Procedure

Rules of Procedure.

 

Site map Cookie policyReturn to the top of this page