27 July - They make up their own rules and then ignore them when it suits
I had four meetings scheduled for today, only three of them BiB related, the fourth was a two hour session with a dentist. It has not left any time for more than one hasty blog.
One
of the meetings was Bexley’s Members’ Code of Conduct Appeals Sub-Committee. I
assumed it was Councillor Maxine Fothergill’s appeal against
her December 2015
conviction for bringing Bexley Council into disrepute but the Agenda offered no
clue and if one Councillor at the meeting hadn’t unintentionally or otherwise
let the cat out of the bag no one would know for certain why the Sub-Committee
was meeting. But thanks to the Councillor’s slip we know it was to consider Maxine’s appeal.
The Councillors on the Sub-Committee were not those who found Councillor
Fothergill guilty as is only right and proper but Councillor June Slaughter was
once again representing Maxine’s interests and perhaps more interesting was the
fact that Bexley Council had hired a barrister to look after their own interests.
Their own Head of Legal was present but as we know neither the Law Society, the
Bar Council or Bexley Council themselves have been able to provide any
evidence
that he might be either qualified or have a practising certificate.
Councillor Fothergill had employed a barrister too who said his only role would
be to ask for an adjournment.
The Chairman of the meeting was Councillor Peter Reader who almost immediately
said he was going to exclude the members of the public. There were two Councillors
in the public gallery and they weren’t welcome either. Bexley Council is going to
extraordinary lengths to keep this case as secret as possible. I doubt that Councillor Fothergill has done something
as serious as we have been encouraged to believe and probably she simply carried
on her property business while canvassing. Bexley Council may be stitching
her up on the flimsy evidence that the alleged
complainant didn’t even put in writing.
As with the December meeting the order of business was not in accordance with
the Council’s own rules. Those rules, and logic, are that the Sub-Committee
should debate whether the meeting should be held in private or not and then, dependent
on that decision, either allow the public to be present or not.
Michael
Barnbrook asked if he could raise a point of order which would have
related to Bexley Council not adhering to their own rules. The Chairman said he
could not but Michael persevered and he eventually made his point which the
Chairman chose to ignore. Four members of the public and the two Councillors were asked to leave.
After about 20 minutes - I wasn’t counting - we were invited back in to the
meeting where we were told that the decision had been taken to exclude the
public from the rest of the meeting and there was no point in us hanging around
because we would not be allowed back to hear the verdict.
The Chairman told us that Councillor Fothergill’s barrister’s request for an
adjournment had been rejected and he went off to the coffee shop
with Councillor Slaughter while the Sub-Committee considered
whether she would be allowed to stay to represent Maxine Fothergill.
I decided I had to leave to get to the next meeting on time but not before taking a look at
the new Chief Executive’s new televisions. They weren’t TVs, they were
screens displaying the Civic Office’s floor plan; one outside each lift. Hence
the report of six screens; two lifts, three floors,
Monitor screens would have been much cheaper to install than TVs so my cost
estimate would be far too high, but why a screen for a floor plan? A laminated
poster, even a nicely framed poster, would be far cheaper and not add to the electricity bill.
But if you have a total salary package approaching a quarter of a million pounds
you probably think that money grows on trees and you just won't care.
The audio recording of the meeting has not yet been examined and given other
commitments may not be until next week. This may prove to be a
superficial and interim report.