18 February (Part 2) - Councillor Fothergill. A step too far
There have been further developments in the ongoing saga of Councillor
Maxine Fothergill and her supposed involvement in a property transaction that
earned her a Misconduct verdict
from Bexley Council’s Code of Conduct Committee.
Her Appeal hearing was cancelled and when asked why, Bexley Council replied that
she had had an “emergency operation”. It was surprising that they were so
uncharacteristically forthcoming but it lined up with reports from other sources
over several weeks past which said Councillor Fothergill was in hospital.
At last night’s Resources Scrutiny meeting
where she earns £3,000 a year for being Vice-Chairman she was said to be absent due to
illness. £750 for not being there. Can’t be bad.
Sources claiming to be close to Councillor Fothergill say she is on holiday.
It’s not impossible that all of those things could be true.
You may recall that Michael Barnbrook wrote to the Chief Constable of Kent
to suggest
he looked into an old complaint about Maxine Fothergill submitted by letter in May last year.
The reply said that no letter had been received.
It’s a good job that the sender paid for tracking and has the Royal Mail’s
confirmation that Kent Police accepted and signed for the letter on 3rd June 2015.
However it is not all bad news, the investigating officer has been instructed to conduct a full review.
The final Fothergill related news is both unexpected and potentially worrying.
Worrying because someone may think I or anyone else who has commented so far played any part in it.
It would appear that residents in and around Roseacre Road, which is adjacent to
the Welling Football Ground, have received scurrilous hand delivered leaflets about Councillor Fothergill.
There is absolutely no evidence of the claims made by its author other than Bexley Council's own conclusion that
Councillor Fothergill conferred a financial advantage on herself, a decision
that becomes ever more perverse the more one discovers about it.
Someone has jumped to far too many conclusions.
I understand that the original complainant has been made aware of this leaflet
but like me, has no idea who has circulated it. Surely someone on Roseacre Road must have CCTV?