24 August (Part 1) - Obfuscation
Probably I should have mentioned it earlier but the Monitoring Officer
replied very quickly to
Tuesday’s email; but it was far from being a
satisfactory explanation of why she dismissed a complaint against the Council Leader with a fib.
Councillors from both parties have been very clear that
there was a Conservative
Party Group Event on Council premises which pedants with too much time on their
hands can argue breaches Code of Conduct rule 7.2b.
No one cares, certainly not me, but I suppose a legally trained mind knows that
a legal defence must be mounted to each and every breach.
“The meeting was not a Conservative party event, but towards the discharge of Council business.”
A business meeting? I could name (but won’t) five elected Members who have
stated otherwise. It’s an outright lie isn’t it? Labour and Independent Members
were neither allowed access nor expected it.
My point, which has been ignored, was that you cannot have a Monitoring Officer whose job it is to ensure
that the Council observes the law of the land and the Council’s Constitution who
will happily invent things to deflect a miniscule amount of criticism of her political masters.
Next time Councillor Daniel Francis raises a point of order in Council and the
M.O. whispers advice into Mayor Dourmoush’s ear can there be any
confidence that her words are not chosen only to please the ruling party, the
Leader of which can dismiss her on a whim?
The Monitoring Officer’s reply to me begins by introducing the subject of
Freedom of Information request. I can only guess what the question was
because it was the first I had heard of it. I think it must have been summarily
dismissed which may well have been the correct decision. I am not an enthusiast
for FOIing trivia and in this case it has little or no relevance to my complaint of less than 100% honesty.
There is absolutely nothing that is new in the Monitoring Officer’s reply
presumably because she cannot admit that the reason for rejecting the complaint
about breaching 7.2b was a fabrication and “the position is maintained”.
At the age of 80 I really do not want to get involved in another police investigation
into Bexley Council misconduct. Even if the matter is serious enough for the police to
refer it to the CPS it is always eventually kicked into the long grass.
Organisations with the power to investigate themselves whether it be the
Countess of Chester Hospital or the Metropolitan Police are always likely to
resort to corruption and call in favours to defend their own.
Should we overlook it when it occurs within Bexley Council?
Ideally the Leader should have words with the Monitoring Officer to ensure that
there is no manipulation of the truth in future, but nothing like that has ever happened before.
As things stand we only have the confirmation that we have a Council Leader who turns a blind eye to
wrong doing. Dare I mention the name Peter Craske again?
I have asked Mr. Shvorob for a copy of his FOI but for technical reasons he is unable to supply one.