A show trial in Broken Barnet: Labour's Kath McGuirk vindicated - again

Despite the publication of a damning independent report by lawyer Claer Lloyd-Jones into the state of Barnet's legal and governance services, and the departure 'by mutual consent' of the former Monitoring Officer, Maryellen Salter, Tory leader Richard Cornelius has stated there will be no review of any decisions made during her time in office, or as a result of advice taken from Barnet's outsourced legal service venture with Harrow's HB Public Law.

So many decisions taken, so many actions sanctioned, without the assurance of an acceptable standard of legal oversight - such complacency, Mrs Angry would suggest, may well prove to be ill founded.

One of the more controversial issues which was handled by the former Monitoring Officer was the curious matter of an allegation made, in April this year, that a Labour councillor had acted improperly in taking part in a meeting when in arrears with her council tax payments.

This member was West Finchley councillor Kath McGuirk, a long serving member known and admired for her outspoken opposition to the Tory administration. She was treated appallingly, in fact: the baseless allegations were made public, and she was vilified by local Tories, portrayed as a 'taxdodger', and her reputation irredeemably damaged. Worse still, immediately after an interview with the Monitoring Officer, her case was referred to the police, and this was also publicised by the council.

That there was no substance to the allegations, and was, in fact, in credit with her payments, and an error made in the course of a typical cockup by the council, and Crapita; and that the police did not pursue the case, must have come as a great disappointment to Councillor McGuirk's political enemies. 

But this was not the end of the matter.

In June local Labour AM Andrew Dismore submitted a complaint to Barnet's Monitoring Officer in the form of allegations about his business activities as a landlord, and  the declaration of pecuniary interests at council meetings. Rayner admitted in an article in the local press here that he had earlier acted incorrectly in regard to contracts that tenants had been obliged to sign, and it later emerged that another Tory councillor had 'pre-signed' a document for him as a witness. He denied that he had acted wrongly in regard to the other allegations.

It might be considered appropriate that if Labour's councillor McGuirk was instantly referred to the police for a relatively minor alleged offence, any serious allegations concerning the Tory Mayor should have been referred to the police too, as a matter of routine. But they were not.

Rayner's case was sent to the leaders' panel, a body that replaced the previous standards' committee, an emasculated, impotent process which not only has no powers of sanction, but is politically weighted, so that Tory members ultimately decide the outcome of any case under consideration.

Rayner was cleared of all charges.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/a-blurred-line-or-bucket-of-whitewash.html

Shortly before he had been due to appear before the panel, Councillor McGuirk was informed that a complaint had been received about her in regard to the matter of the council tax payment, and would be referred to the group leaders' panel.

The complaint, we discovered from a letter sent to a local paper, was from one Myles Longfield, a sometime Conservative Future and local activist from Finchley & Golders Green Conservative Association, who had stood - unsuccessfully - no less than three times against Kath Mc Guirk in local elections, here in Mrs Angry's home ward of West Finchley.

Here is naughty Myles getting into trouble with local MP Mike Freer, who for some reason became rather peeved when his fellow Finchley Tory had his picture taken with William Hague: 

Interesting Freudian slip, 'absolved from seeing other people' ...absolved?  And amusing that any local  Tory would think the firmly Labour voting ward of West Finchley could be a target for them ...

By some extraordinary coincidence, this complaint against the Labour councillor by a political rival, which had already been proven to be based on a totally false premise, was going to be referred to the very same meeting at which the Tory Mayor's charges would be heard - a meeting, incidentally, which Andrew Dismore had clearly stated he could not attend as he was abroad. 

It was pretty evident that local Tories hoped the sideshow of false allegations against the Labour councillor would detract from the enormously damaging publicity engendered by the allegations faced by the Tory Mayor.

Fortunately Kath Mc Guirk by now was supported by the best possible legal representation, Frances Randle, from Steel and Shamash, the Labour party solicitors, and was therefore able to defend herself, and avoid being exploited as a distraction from the main event of the farcical Rayner hearing - the outcome of which was predictable, seeing him cleared of all charges, with a speech ready prepared in his pocket to perform at the end of the proceedings. 

After strong objections and a robust response from her legal advisors, Kath's case did not go to the same hearing as the Tory Mayor.

To be falsely accused of 'taxdodging', and subjected to a police referral on a spurious basis is bad enough; even when cleared of the charge, and proving the mistake is due to the council's own incompetence is bad enough - to find yourself the subject of another process of investigation by the same people, as a result of well timed complaint from a political activist, and to find that complaint deemed not to be vexatious by the unqualified Monitoring Officer who had so enthusiastically discharged some of the serious allegations raised in a dossier of evidence by the (legally qualified) complainant and Assembly Member Andrew Dismore ... is a curious thing, is it not?

Perhaps some of these decisions, and others, in the light of the Lloyd-Jones report, will now be challenged: but in the meanwhile, last Monday night Kath Mc Guirk found herself facing the kangaroo court that is the group leaders' panel, to answer the allegations submitted by a complainant who did not even have the grace to show up at the proceedings. 

Complainant Myles Longfield, photobombed by a former Finchley MP
     
Young Master Longfield may have chosen to stay away, but the seats were packed with supporters who had come to show solidarity with Kath: her mother and daughter, fellow councillors, activists and friends.

When Rayner attended his panel hearing, he was completely on his own.

Councillor McGuirk could very well have decided not to recognise the validity of the panel, and refuse to co-operate, but in contrast to the complainant, she showed great courage in attending the hearing,  and robustly rebutting - yet again - the charges against her.

In keeping with the soviet style show trial traditions of justice, in Broken Barnet, the Group Leaders' Panel has made two significant changes in format from the previous standards committee it replaces. Replacing the right to legal representation, and the right of independent members to vote. 

This masterly disregard for the demands of natural justice, and a fair trial, is of course the mark of everything we have come to know about our Tory members, and their attitude of contempt for the Nolan principles, or the policy and principles of localism.

Councillor McGuirk was denied the right to legal representation, while of course the case for the prosecution had the 'benefit' of advice and direction from our outsourced legal services at HB Public Law, the joint venture with Harrow, whose failings were identified in the Lloyd-Jones report this month.

At the table on Monday night, therefore, were Jessica Farmer, who heads HB Public Law, and her colleague Linda Cohen. 

Not sitting at the table, for some reason, was the new (interim) Monitoring Officer, Mr Large, whom we have borrowed, on request, like an out of print library book, from Westminster City Council.

Also not sitting at the table, but sitting between Kath Mc Guirk and Mrs Angry, was Frances Randle, from Steel and Shamash, keeping her Steely eye firmly focused on the proceedings.

Also present were Tory leader (interim) Richard Cornelius, the aspirational, but currently deputy leader Daniel Thomas, a rather bewildered looking Joan Scannell, and from Labour leader Alison Moore, deputy leader Barry Rawlings and a token Independent Person, Tanya Ossack, also rather bewildered, as she had been at the previous panel hearing.

When the Tory Mayor had faced his own show trial, Ms Ossack raised some good questions, but it became clear that she was not perfectly familiar with the case, as she had not been the Independent Person consulted originally by the Monitoring Officer in regard to the charges. 

It was then discovered by Andrew Dismore that correspondence with the original Independent Person, Stephen Ross, whose views are supposed to be sought by the MO, had not been included in the dossier of papers published for the meeting. 

 http://www.dismore4hendon.co.uk/just_one_day_after_rayner_hearing_council_disclose_crucial_email_relevant_to_the_case

Was that because of the view by Stephen Ross - that was disregarded - that all, and not some, of the allegations levelled at the Mayor should be investigated? The (legally unqualified) Monitoring Officer ignored this view, despite the objections of the (legally qualified) complainant, Andrew Dismore.

On with the hearing, then. 

Or maybe not a hearing so much as an attempted lynching, as it was clear the entire process, so far,  was not only politically motivated, but run with as much regard for the law and natural justice as any random act of reprisal as you might find in the outlaw territory of Broken Barnet. 

Thankfully, help was at hand from the stranger just arrived in town, fresh from the city: Ms Randle, armed with not so much a trusty six-shooter, as a copy of the Localism Act, 2011.

The panel began with some observations by the Labour leader. She objected strongly to the refusal of the Monitoring Officer to consider Myles Longfield's complaint as vexatious, 'a political tit for tat', as she put it, from a known political opponent, and over an issue already referred to and dismissed by the police. Where was the public interest in pursuing this still further?

Linda Cohen thought that the MO would have investigated this matter. The involvement of the Independent Person would have acted as a 'filter'. 

Mmm, thought Mrs Angry, all very well, as long as the 'filter' is not cast aside, as in the previous panel hearing ...

The process, we heard, did not go as far as a public interest test, at this stage, and it was up to the MO to decide whether or not the complaint was frivolous, or vexatious, and should go forward. Mmm, once again: should that decision be in the hands of a legally unqualified MO, do you think?

The Labour leader pointed out that it was clear the issue concerning Cllr McGuirk's situation regarding her student daughter's status was entirely 'a paper exercise', and that it was the case that in fact the council owed her money, and not the other way round.

A fairly absurd debate now took place between deputy Labour leader Barry Rawlings, and Jessica Farmer, on the referral by the MO to the police of complaints regarding allegations made against councillors. 

Barry thought it might be the case that in the final stage, a complaint might be referred. 

Ms Farmer said So ... it might be the police, then the panel procedure. 

Erm, thought Mrs Angry: really? What happened in the case of the serious allegations regarding the Mayor, which were not referred at all?

Alison Moore reminded the meeting that this course had already been pursued, in the case of the Labour member. She also asked how much the proceedings and pursuit of this complaint had cost. 

Richard Cornelius pointed out that the panel could not refer any matter to the police. In truth, thought Mrs Angry, the panel can do f*ck all about anything any councillor does, and it is a complete waste of time, but still ...

The deputy Tory leader, Dan Thomas, tried arguing, half heartedly, that it might be said the previous case, ie the charges against Hugh Rayner, were 'vexatious'.

Tanya Ossack's turn to speak. She did not know the 'ins and outs' of the politics, but she didn't really see that the code was breached in this case.

Ah.

Barry Rawlings suggested that the panel, in that case, should voted as to whether or not to proceed with the hearing?

Even the Tory leader was, by this point, reading the writing on the wall: he said he would like to have 'a quiet word outside'.

'A Quiet Word' is of course the favoured remedy in all awkward situations, in Broken Barnet, when it becomes apparent that some sort of cockup by the Tories has been revealed, in all its naked ugliness, and they think Labour will be open to their indecent suggestions. Sometimes, to be fair, this remedy is all it takes to bring an end to the matter, and move on. 

Councillor McGuirk, however, had something to say, and sat at the table to make her contribution. 

As briefed by her legal advisor, Frances Randle, she pointed out a statutory requirement, according to the Localism Act, that access should be extended, at a certain point in the proceedings, to the Independent Person, in regard to the member facing such charges. 

This right had not been extended to her, in defiance of the Act, and clearly invalidated the whole process to which she had been subjected, quite apart from the flagrant injustice of the pursuit of what was clearly a vexatious request of no substance.

Time for that Quiet Word, then. 

The panel slipped out of the room, and unlike the case of the Mayor, were absent for only a matter of minutes.

It was clear that they knew there was no case to answer. 

They dressed it up in the guise of a two point resolution - that members should 'sort out' their council taxes, in good time (no mention of crapita being obliged to do the same) and although there had been a technical breach ( caused by the council/crapita cocking up the bill) this could be dealt with by referring it back to the party leader (who has already dealt with the issue that isn't an issue anyway). 

A face-saving announcement for the Tories or so they fondly wished, but a total vindication for Kath McGuirk, met with jubilation by all of her comrades, friends and supporters. 

Despite the celebrations, the truth remains that as a result of this persecution, someone who had committed no wrongdoing had had to go through the distress and embarrassment of two protracted public investigations, apparently on the basis of a process promoted by political enemies, and overseen by an unqualified Monitoring Officer.

The Tories sat at the table, deflated, then slipped out of the room, unnoticed. 

A shabby affair, from beginning to end, and one which has predictably backfired. 

The other significant question that it raises, however, is this: what does the handling of the two Group Leaders' Panel hearings say about the decision making of the now departed Monitoring Officer, and the quality of legal advice supplied to her by HB Public Law? 

We return to the catalogue of problems highlighted by Claer Lloyd-Jones in her report, and must ask: how can the Tory leader state, as he did to Mrs Angry last week, with such glib assurance, that there was no need to review any of the decisions and actions authorised on behalf of the council, since the time Jeff Lustig left, and the new arrangements and Monitoring Officer were in place? 

What degree of risk of legal challenge has this created, and from whom, and at what cost to us, the residents and taxpayers of Broken Barnet? 

What will happen, for example, in the case of the curious decision by the former MO to allow our Tory councillors 'dispensations' from the restrictions that should restrict their involvement in meetings where they may have a pecuniary interest? 

This was based on an 'assumption' that these waivers are constitutionally permissable. No one seems to know if they are in fact lawful, and in the wake of the Lloyd-Jones report, it would seem clear that this is another action that was not supported by an adequate standard of legal advice - or risk assessment.

Richard Cornelius has sought to minimise the implications of the report, however, and boasted that the only outcome of any significance is that there are now more Tory councillors on the new committees. 

In response to Mrs Angry's question, he was happy to confirm that he has full confidence in the Chief Executive, as Head of Paid Service, and at the next Full Council meeting, he tells us with gleeful enthusiasm that he intends to vote for himself, in defiance of the opposition's motion of no confidence in his abilities. 

At the same time Cornelius and Travers exhibit an apparent lack of concern for the almighty cockups identified in the Lloyd-Jones report,  the blame has been dumped on the head of suitable scapegoats, while they, who are paid so generously to bear the responsibility for what went wrong, clearly think they can carry on as if nothing has happened.

But something did happen, as the events behind the decisions taken in regard to the two panel hearings clearly demonstrates, and the consequences, Mrs Angry cheerfully predicts, will continue to haunt our Tory friends, whether they like it, or not.

Mrs Angry also cheerfully predicts that this time next year, neither the Tory leader, nor his Chief Executive is likely to be in office.

And that may not be the only major change in the order of things here, in the political landscape of Broken Barnet, where nothing is ever quite what it seems, and the direction of travel, as our senior officers would put it, may sometimes take us very far from our intended destination ...

Keep it in perspective, or: Mistakes will happen: a salute from the bridge, as the Barnet Tory ship sinks into the sea

Three wise monkeys: Barnet's Chief Executive, the Tory 'Leader', and the new Monitoring Officer (interim/for the duration).
 
So, yes: about Tuesday night - and absent friends: a face missing at the committee table, and a new one, slightly red in the face, looking as if he wished he were back in what must seem like the parish council tedium of Westminster City Council: here is Mr Large, the new, secondhand, seconded, pre-used, part-time, interim, temporary Monitoring Officer. 

Mrs Angry greeted him cheerfully, when it was her turn to sit at the table, recognising his face from a long search on google image, looking for a nice pic for yesterday's blog, and finding a suitable shot of him sinking his weary head in his hands, which may well be a position with which he finds himself familiar, in the time he spends here, in exile, in Broken Barnet.

Not that he will spend much time here, as we discovered: but we are jumping ahead of ourselves.

This meeting was the Policy and Resources Committee, to which had been submitted the condemnatory report into Barnet's governance and legal service, written by Claer Lloyd-Jones. 

No public statement had been made by the council about the findings of the report, or indeed that the investigation had been concluded: it was hidden in the agenda of this meeting, as if it were just another routine matter, of no consequence.

The significance of this report, of course, is immense, and no amount of obfuscation and denial by our Tory members can disguise the devastating consequences of the failures identified by Ms Lloyd-Jones. 

But denial is, predictably, perhaps, the tactic adopted by Cornelius and his colleagues, in the face of all reason.

There was clear indication of this line of defence at a meeting the night before, held to discuss the renumeration of senior officers. The Labour leader tried to raise a point about the post of Monitoring Officer, and ask that the role should be filled by a qualified person. A reasonable, if somewhat restrained suggestion to make, one might think. 

The Tory leader bristled at this unwarranted exhibition of political challenge. 

This will be, he muttered dismissively, something we discuss tomorrow night. He unbent a little, and graciously admitted that he had 'some sympathy with what you are saying'. Further comments provoked a tut-tutted response: we must not assume what tomorrow's committte will decide, he said, pursing his lips.

There are, he observed, rather mystifyingly, levels of sophistication here ... 

Are there, thought Mrs Angry, looking round the room? 

The Labour leader ploughed on dutifully, pushing for clarification over the qualifications of the next MO. 

There was, she sensed, a certain amount of turbulence, around that role ...

Turbulence, thought Mrs Angry. Indeed there is. 

Or you might go further, if you were less polite, and say there is a sense of being f*cked over, good and proper, by a conniving, lazy, incompetent Tory administration, being led by the nose by their own senior management team. Around that role.

But, see: this is why Mrs Angry did not pursue a career in diplomacy, or the hospitality industry, and prefers to be in the eye of the storm, rather than standing by with a clipboard, at the edge, noting the change in weather.

Cornelius may have hoped for a similarly oblique exchange of opinions at P&R. If so, he must have been gravely disappointed.    

         

Public questions he attempted to deflect with his usual assumption of innocent misunderstanding, or by a tight lipped refusal to comment. Not much he could do about questions from opposition members, especially the new ones, whose approach is somewhat more direct than he is used to, but he had carefully prepared the ground, or so he thought, by demanding absolute silence from his own Tory colleagues on the committee. 

There they sat, deputy leader Dan Thomas, a sullen faced Tom Davey, Reuben Thompstone, and the inscrutable Sachin Rajput, trying to stay awake, but failing, all of them bound by the rule of omerta, agreed, and signed in blood, no doubt, at the Tory group pre-meeting before the main event. 

A trio of uncharacteristically silent Tory councillors: Rajput, Thompstone and Thomas

The older but no wiser Anthony Finn was unable to keep his mouth entirely shut, sadly, and sometime actor/councillor David Longstaff also blurted something out at one point, but generally the feeling from the Tory side of the table was one of a sulky agreement to close their eyes, swallow hard, and pretend they were not there, in the hope that the ordeal would soon be all over.

This is never going to be over, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet: at least, not until we say so, see. Open your eyes: yes - it's all going horribly wrong, isn't it?

Public question time is meant to be for, well, the public: but reporter Anna Slater, from the local Times, used her initiative, supported, on the night, by new information for supplementary questions, and submitted queries that, for some reason, she felt would not have been answered through the usual press channels. 

She was probably right, and in fact the information chiselled out of the Tory leader and his officers by the range of questioners was pretty surprising, especially in relation to the interesting chain of events which led to the hiring and then the - not firing - but departure of the former Monitoring Officer on a basis of, what was it again ... mutual consent?

We learned from the questions submitted that Ms Salter was one of only two people who applied for her post. Both were internal applicants. Only two were shortlisted.  Both were 'assessed' at an ''assessment centre' through a process involving 'a meeting exercise, written exercise, behavioural interview following Wave and Hogan psychometric testing and a technical interview'. 

Mrs Angry would like to have been a fly on the wall, during the behavioural interview, wouldn't you, readers?

Following this process, we were told, one candidate withdrew and the other was deemed suitable to move through to the officer interview panel.

Oh. Deemed suitable. Doesn't say on what basis. 

The ability to use a pencil, that sort of thing, probably. 

Wonder why one candidate withdrew? And then: how many were invited to a final interview panel? One, of course. Hmm. 

How many of these people had a legal background?

One.

Ok, so we know that was not Ms Salter, so the person who withdrew was someone who did have a legal background, and was better qualified for the post. What a shame this person withdrew. Especially as it was now confirmed, rather startlingly, by Andrew Travers, the Chief Executive, that that person was none other than the former head of governance, and Monitoring Officer, Jeff Lustig.

Mrs Angry was amazed that the Chief Executive was happy to name this person so openly, but of course he must have taken legal advice before doing so, and  - oh. 

Maybe not.

Why did the former Monitoring Officer suddenly withdraw from the process of application for his own job, a job which he clearly has undertaken for many years, with admirable skill, and for which he was very obviously the only really suitable candidate?

Could it be related to the modification of the post as one with no legal requirement? 

Why would you remove that requirement, anyway? 

All a great mystery, is it not? 

But a lucky outcome for Ms Salter, or so it must have seemed at the time.

Back to the public questions. Mrs Angry had bunged in three, at three minutes before the deadline. The art, for the lazy blogger attending committee meetings, of course, is really in the supplementary questions, and in trying to disturb the composure of the chairwoman, in this case, the Tory leader. Pointless, but satisfying, as a form of sport.

Mrs Angry tries her best to disturb the composure of Mr Travers and Cllr Cornelius

Q: In view of the unprecedented level of criticism levelled at the standard of governance and legal services in this authority, does the Chief Executive still retain the full confidence of the Chair, and the Conservative administration, and if not, have they asked for his resignation, or has he offered to resign?

A: Yes
      N/A
      N/A

Oh dear. Rather short on information, wasn't it? Mrs Angry took her place at the table.

She confessed herself to be rather astonished by the fact that the Chief Executive - no offence, Mr Travers, she murmured, soothingly, in his direction, in case his feelings were hurt -that the Chief Executive still enjoyed the full confidence of Councillor Cornelius. 

What would happen if, say, it was discovered that the caretakers of the Town Hall had, since April 2013 or thereabouts, been in the habit of leaving the doors and windows of the building unlocked, and open to intruders, every night (which they would not, and here Mrs Angry must take the opportunity to say how very polite and conscientious they are). Would they not be instantly dismissed?

And yet: here we were, with a Chief Executive who had allowed the authority to proceed without the protection of an adequate legal service, or rule of governance, and still he retained his job, and the support of the Tory leader. And despite the fact that, as the response to Q 35 makes clear: 

As Head of paid Service, the Chief Executive is ultimately responsible for all officer activity.

He is surely responsible, ultimately responsible, for all serious failures by those officers, therefore, and yet ... Maryellen Salter carries the can, and the more senior officer, who has a legal duty to ensure compliance with all statutory requirements, goes scot free. 

Hmm. Cornelius made one of his pained faces, the one that looks as if he might be suffering from prolonged constipation, but usually signifies a determination to avoid answering an awkward question. 

In this instance, he decided to go further than merely avoiding a response, and produced an observation which was quite breathtaking in its display of indifference to the significance of Ms Lloyd-Jones' findings: 

Mistakes will happen, he said, shrugging his shoulders.

Very expensive mistakes, observed Mrs Angry primly, eyebrows raised over the rim of her glasses.

Meh. What does expense matter, when it is the poor taxpayers of Broken Barnet who will pick up the bill, and not R. Cornelius and the gang of eejits sitting around the Tory end of the table?

Worse was to come.

The consequence of all this of course, said Cornelius smugly, was that there were more Conservative members on committees ...

Mrs Angry throught she must have misheard this comment, but no: he repeated it later in the evening, and it is captured on film, for your benefit.

In other words, the Tory leader is not at all bothered by the findings of the Lloyd-Jones report, or the failures that are identified, because as a result of the whole cockup, the Tories emerged with a stronger political presence on all committees, and are able to push through their shabby agenda of further privatisation and cuts in vital services. Result. 

Next question:

Q: The report has very serious implications for a long sequence of decisions sanctioned by the Monitoring Officer and HBPublic Law: since the findings of the report were known, has the authority taken steps to ensure the legal basis of any of those decisions, but in particular:

• all decisions made by the new committee structure which were said to be lawful, despite the non constitutional basis in which they were made?

• the dispensations Tory members have arranged from the Monitoring Officer to hide their pecuniary interests rather than declare them at council meetings

• the constitutional basis of the working groups and failure to extend the rights of members of the public in regard to council meetings

• the dismissal of certain allegations made before the decision to put other charges before the Mayor's panel hearing

A: Decisions of the Monitoring Officer were supported by legal advice, including external legal advice from leading counsel. There is no intention to revisit those decisions.

Another pretty extraordinary response: no intention to check that no other serious mistakes have been made?

Mrs Angry suggested to the Tory leader that this was absolutely incredible. This damning report, she said,  confirms that you have exposed the authority to considerable risk as a result of serious failures, and your incompetence. 

What was described as the 'shambles' of the full council meeting is only one instance: what about, for example, the dispensations that you required an unqualified Monitoring Officer to give Tory members so they could hide their pecuniary interests? 

Was he happy that that was lawful advice, and that some of his Tory colleagues might face criminal investigations, if not, bearing in mind that failing to declare a pecuniary interest can be a criminal offence? (Earlier in the year, incidentally, Mrs Angry and Mr Mustard were surprised to hear from the MO that councillors were apparently not required to notify her of interests accrued after 28 days from the date they had been elected, when it was discovered a member had not added such an interest to their own register entry. A declaration was subsequently made, however).

Perhaps 'hide' is an exaggeration: or perhaps it is not - a nominal admission is made, but certainly by allowing those councillors to then take part in proceedings, the impression will be given to most onlookers that there was no personal benefit that might raise a conflict of interest.

Cornelius made another face, and interrupted to say that the dispensations did reveal that people 'had a property', that the point of the dispensation was to allow members to take part in debate, and to - ha ha - 'use their experience wisely' ...

That remark, as you might expect, was met with a certain amount of ribald laughter amongst the public seats. And of course the current Mayor, Hugh Rayner has plenty of experience as a landlord that he feels enables him to do just that, does he not?

Ah: so the dispensations were not so as to ensure Tory members could take part in votes and decisions from which they would, ordinarily, in the absence of such dispensations, automatically be barred, but merely so as to bring a deeper level of experience to the heady intellectual debate that we enjoy in the long moments of any Barnet committee meeting.

One would hope that no member would willingly mislead residents as to their own interests, but the question here that must be addressed is whether the authority's own advice on this matter is sufficiently robust and will protect members from accusations of wrongdoing, by taking part in such meetings.

Mrs Angry reminded Councillor Cornelius that it is on record that Ms Salter stated it was only assumed that the dispensations were constitutional, and that no one knows if they are indeed lawful, and the authority therefore may have been exposed to serious risk.

Oh: hello - here is the new Monitoring Officer (interim, on loan from Westminster) Mr Large, who thought the Localism Act did allow for dispensations, but interestingly, he said 'he would be looking at that', which suggested that there was, at the very least, an element of doubt as to the lawfulness of the use of these waivers, and he stated he would not allow any member to 'hide' any interests. Hiding, or setting to one side: one must keep asking the question -how can the granting of dispensations to cover these interests not be in conflict with the principle of full disclosure? 

What is the point of the localism act requiring members to make declarations of pecuniary interests, or risk prosecution, and yet allow them to opt out of the restrictions that should apply once they had done so, in some form - simply because they want to? 

How does this serve the notion of transparency, and probity in public office?

We don't know, and we need to be told, and we should have been assured of the legal status before any were allowed. 

And the point is that this is only one of the many questionable decisions sanctioned in the period scrutinised by Ms Lloyd-Jones's report: how many other dubious actions approved in this time now lie open to challenge?

And on the subject of transparency, Mrs Angry's last question: 

Q:The findings of the report by Ms Lloyd-Jones, commissioned in June, have been known since August, yet no public statement was issued in the form of a press release, and nothing known until October, when the matter was slipped into a report to this meeting. How is such an action compliant with the requirements of transparency and accountability to the residents and taxpayers of this borough?

A:The full report of Ms Lloyd-Jones is being presented to the first available Policy and Resources Committee meeting.

Mrs Angry came back to the table to ask about, yes, that thing again, the concept that is so hard for our Tory members to understand, the principle of transparency, and how it is best served by sneaking this report into the meeting and not making any statement beforehand to the residents and taxpayers of this borough? It seems to me, she continued, that is not what transparency is meant to be. She did not see how any of the Nolan Principles were being served in the way they had conducted themselves in the course of the last two administrations, and it seemed incredible to her that they could regard such a serious report to be of so little relevance it doesn't deserve a formal statement to the press.

Cornelius, again, wasn't bovvered. The report should be presented to councillors first, of course. Councillors could then ask Ms Lloyd-Jones, (who was sitting in the front row, next to Mrs Angry) about the report. As it happened, it would appear that for the Tory members, this was a complete waste of time, as they had nothing to ask, which is pretty astonishing, you might think.

Mrs Angry suggested that residents would therefore have to make up their own minds about the whole matter, and sat down. As she did so, you may note from the footage, the Chief Executive, arms gripped defensively across his chest, made some sort of disparaging remark to his boss. (He is his boss, is he? Sort of.)

After the public questions, it was time for Ms Lloyd-Jones to address the committee. She explained her background as a lawyer, and part time judge, and said that she had been a Monitoring Officer and worked with non legally qualified MOs, and was open minded on that subject - although later she agreed that the majority of MOs were indeed qualified lawyers.

Her job, she said, was to hold a mirror up to the council. Mrs Angry had a horrible vision, then of Medusa, and being turned to stone, rather in the manner of the Tory councillors sitting around the table, rigid with unease, looking on, in brooding silence.

We heard about the risks raised by the recent arrangements in law and governance: the loss of corporate memory, and the development of a state of ignorance in which the council could be described as one that 'doesn't know what it doesn't know'.

Time for a contribution from Andrew Travers, the Chief Executive in whom the Tory leader, as Mrs Angry was assured, retains the utmost confidence, so why he now was prevailed upon to make a somewhat limited, ritual form of 'apology' at all, is rather mysterious. 

He accepted the conclusions of the report, he said. Big of you, thought Mrs Angry. And then: he would repeat the previous apology in regard to these 'shortcomings'. Not sure what previous 'apology' had taken place, or where, but his comments now did not really conjure up the impression  of a man overwhelmed with regret, or any sense of personal failure. 

Shortcomings, of course, are nothing serious, and besides ... mistakes will happen, as the Tory leaders so blithely informed us.
 
Back to questions for Claer Lloyd -Jones. The sole contribution from the Tory ranks consisted of a couple of barking comments from Anthony Finn, the sometime chairwoman of various committees, who believes that the point of scrutiny is not to be critical, but to make 'positive remarks'. The very idea of a report like this must be anathema to him, therefore. 

Finn thought that all sorts of people had held the post of Monitoring Officer, including, he claimed, surveyors, and ... communists. Erm? All that was needed in the post, he said was A Clear Head. 

Oh, how we chortled. We can only surmise that in the course of those behavioural interviews, Ms Salter was identified as having A Clear Head, and Mr Lustig began to wonder what the hell he was doing there in the first place. Am I right, Jeff?

Labour's Ross  Houston was not convinced by Councillor Finn's suggestion. He thought that perhaps, were he to be having his tonsils removed, he might prefer to have a qualified doctor, rather than someone with, yes,  A Clear Head.

A clear headed Councillor Finn

One interesting remark by Ms Lloyd Jones suggested that the fiasco over the wrongly designed committees, which required a legal opinion, which may or may not have been conclusive anyway, proved the value of an in-house legal service. she also observed that sharing legal services with Harrow could create conflicts of interest. 

Cornelius reminded everyone that we had, at taken external advice. Indeed: and it is hard to see how the current arrangements, buying in legal advice from HBPublic Law and from external counsel, can possibly be cost effective, compared to in-house provision. It is rather like a family in poverty demonstrating their commitment to austerity measures by deciding to abandon their kitchen, and live on a diet of takeaways, isn't it?

Perhaps the most telling performance from the opposition councillors came from new Labour member, Paul Edwards. Paul may be a new member, but is a former union convenor of many years experience, and well versed in the art of politics. He is also refreshingly direct in his approach, and unlike some of the longer serving members, has not been brainwashed into the misapprehension that senior officers must not be challenged by councillors, because it is 'not fair'. The truth that has escaped some of the more traditionally minded members is that the council is being run by the senior management team, to their agenda, and any resemblance to the ideological idees fixes of the elected Tory group is entirely coincidental.

Councillor Edwards had a question first of all for Claer Lloyd-Jones. He produced two documents, two reports from 2013, one of which had been submitted to an Audit Committee, and both of which addressed the need to have in place a system of contract monitoring in regard to the issues now highlighted as being of concern, but these reports had not been implemented. Had she seen them? She had not. 

Claer Lloyd-Jones, left, and Councillor Paul Edwards, right

How very odd, that officers had not thought to present these documents to her.

The questions - from Labour members only - continued at length. Ross Houston noted that it was crazy, in his opinion, not to have in house resources. Claer Lloyd-Jones reminded us that the deputy Monitoring Officer (yes, apparently there was one), ie Jessica Farmer, from HBpublic Law was legally qualified. Ironic, you might think, that the deputy MO had the qualifications her senior lacked.

But here is an even more interesting conundrum.

The opposition members tried hard to tease out the timeline of events leading to the departure of Maryellen Salter. Mrs Angry is not awfully confident that the timeline presented as the official version is entirely credible. Yes, shocking, is it not?

Ms Salter's employment with Barnet finished, we are told, last Thursday, the 9th October. Yet she had not been at work since some time earlier in September. Her absence was not due to suspension, nor gardening leave. During her absence, which was apparently only leave, a range of dispensations in her name was presented to Full Council,  on 23rd September. 

Why was Jessica Farmer's name not on that report? If, as Travers claimed in response to a public question, that Ms Farmer was the nominated deputy (which is a statutory requirement), should her name not have been on all such documents? Were those dispensations valid?

When did Ms Farmer take over as the duties of deputy, in the absence of Ms Salter? Why did Ms Salter's out of office response not explain that Ms Farmer was currently acting on her behalf, or give a return date? As another new Labour councillor, Alon Or Bach explained, her out of office message as late as 5th October gave no mention of any delegation of her duties.

Why is Ms Farmer not acting as deputy now, and why did we, in a sudden panic, last Thursday, have to acquire the part-time services (only two days a week, we heard) of Mr Large, from Westminster Council?

Why did the Chief Executive of Westminster Council say Mr Large's role in Barnet would have no impact on his responsibliities in Westminster? Is his role then purely nominal?

Back to Paul Edwards, and the issue of the withheld documents: why did officers not share these with Ms Lloyd-Jones? They raised issues of serious risk which were really pertinent.

Well, said Andrew Travers ... they tried to make sure all relevant documents were available to her. There was no attempt to conceal anything.

Councillor Edwards said he was not suggesting there had been concealment, but why had they not shown them to her? These recommendations had never been implemented.

Cornelius remarked that he thought Paul Edwards was making a statement, rather than asking a question.

The annual meeting, he conceded, had been 'a poor show'. He admitted that he originally had not considered that the MO would be someone who was not legally qualified.

Mr Shepherd, the People's Mayor, could contain himself no longer. He tried to help the Tory leader out, in his own way. 

You can always be your own doctor, or solicitor, he suggested, suddenly keen to think about the benefits of self-help, and keeping  A Clear Head.  Like Mr Shepherd himself, who has perfect clarity of thought, and could make a fair stab at being a Monitoring Officer: especially as Cllr Finn has spoken so warmly of a former communist in the role.

I know a fool when I see one, he said, monitoring the group of Tories sitting like sulky schoolboys at the far end of the room, and there are plenty of them sitting round the table.

Cornelius was feeling emboldened now, and launched into a further preposterous rebuttal of the findings of the report.


The arrangement with HBPublic Law, he said, was working very well. Yes, there were shortcomings, but, he observed, standing on the bridge, saluting, like Captain Edward Smith, as the icy waters rushed into the third class quarters down below - we must keep this in perspective. 

All that's happened, he repeated, as the rest of the room looked on, wondering where the lifeboats were, and how many of us would fit in, all that's happened is that there are more Conservatives on committees ...

In life, in death, O Lord, muttered Mrs Angry, her hands clasped in prayer, Abide with me.

Resting thespian, and grateful councillor David Longstaff was singing from the same hymnsheet. 

He wanted us to admire the recent award handed to HBPublicLaw by the Law Society. Councillor Longstaff was apparently unaware of this article in the Barnet Press, in which it is reported:

After being contacted by The Press, a spokeswoman for the Law Society said it had been contacted by Ms Lloyd-Jones and was in the process of reviewing her report on the council.

Alon Or Bach queried the timeline of events, and the circumstances in which Mr Large had come to be appointed as an interim MO. Andrew Travers was obliged to come up with an explanation, of sorts, and as he did so, Mrs Angry noticed the mutinous Tory councillors regarding him with close attention. One might easily have concluded, from their body language, that they were as much in the dark as anyone else.

Alon Or Bach

The Labour leader proposed some suggestions to go down as amendments to the Tories' proposed recommendations in response to the report. These were all perfectly reasonable amendments:

• That legal services are brought back-in house
• That the vacant Monitoring Officer post must be filled by a legally qualified person, and this must be specified in the job description and job advert
• That pending legal services being brought back in-house the recommendations of the external report that strengthen Barnet’s legal and governance arrangements are agreed
• That high-level in-house legal support is introduced in Barnet pending legal services being brought back-in house
• That all decisions taken since Barnet ceased to have a legally qualified Monitoring Officer are reviewed  

Too reasonable, of course, for our Tory members. Cornelius would not support bringing legal services in house. And the deputy leader, Dan Thomas, suddenly found his voice, right at the end of the meeting, and said that he did not see the need for an all encompassing review of decisions taken.

Well, what a surprise! 

Alison Moore reminded them of issues such as the dispensations, the leaders panel: all things that must be reviewed, and so for that reason, she said, she would ask her colleagues to move the report to Full Council.

Cornelius looked less than pleased, because of course he has difficulty in forcing all his Tory colleagues to turn up to Full Council, and sooner or later, he is going to find he has not got a majority present, and Labour will be able to vote through their own motions and amendments. Oh dear.

Which is why the next day it was announced that the extraordinary council meeting to consider Labour's vote of no confidence in his leadership will take place at the end of Full Council, when there might be a chance all his members have managed to stroll along to the Town Hall. 

Providing, that is, that all of them do  vote against the motion, ... otherwise - we could end up with a new leader, altogether, couldn't we? 

Always useful, of course, to have a nominated deputy, just in case.

Giving it (not very) Large: Barnet's new interim, part-time, temporary Monitoring Officer steps into the breach. Sort of.

Our new, part-time, interim, temporary Monitoring Officer, Peter Large, on loan from Westminster City Council (hours to be negotiated), clearly looking forward to his association with Broken Barnet. Pic courtesy of Nutsville.com.

So ... as our former Monitoring Officer would begin all her remarks ... So: where were we?

Ah yes: our former Monitoring Officer, see? Gone, but not forgotten. Gone where, Mrs Angry, I hear you ask? Not sure, but it is 'by mutual consent'. 

All the best things happen by mutual consent, don't they? In the bedroom, in the boardroom, in the free world, where life continues without the bondage of contractual obligation, or the frisson of fear that comes from that imbalance of power between partners, personal, or corporate.

Between the boundaries of Broken Barnet, however, the ties that bind are usually stretched tight as tight can be, and consent is neither sought, nor granted. When push comes to shove: off you go. 

Bye bye.

Who knows what happened in the case of Ms Maryellen Salter, sometime Monitoring Officer, now replaced by an 'interim' MO, although not replaced, we are told, until Thursday, 9th October, after the most almighty reaction to the events that led to that damning report, by Claer Lloyd-Jones, into the collapse of governance and legal services in this benighted borough. 

Of course we like 'interim' consultants, here in Barnet. 

We like them a lot, and we recruit them as often as possible, for our senior management posts, via the discreet offices of a third party - an agency, so as to confound the investigative zeal of the local blogosphere. 

These interims and consultants blow into town, wafted on a cloud of mystery, landing at NLBP, staying as long as possible, on terms and conditions beyond the scope of public scrutiny, before moving on to pastures new - very often, it seems, to Haringey, to work for former Barnet CEO, Mr Nick Walkley, the real architect of One Barnet, the massive programme that outsourced most of our council services . 

Walkley is of course also the man who oversaw the restructuring of the governance and legal services department here, with a post of Monitoring Officer newly defined, for some reason, with no requirement for any legal qualifications - which is how we ended up with an auditor instead of an experienced lawyer, with predictable and disastrous consequences.

Mrs Angry can guess what you are wondering: will Ms Salter end up in Haringey too ... or is it true she has just accepted a post as the events manager for a local micro-brewery? 

Who knows?

We do know, however that our new Monitoring Officer, or rather the 'interim' MO, comes with an interesting CV: from Westminster Council, tripping with ease from one former Tory 'flagship' authority to another: both fine examples of Tory councils, of course, with many similarities. 

A keen interest in social engineering, for example, from accusations of 'gerrymandering' in Westminster in the eighties, to the social cleansing housing 'regeneration' of Broken Barnet in 2014 -  and an enthusiasm from both Conservative run authorities for milking endless streams of revenue from hapless residents exhibiting the gross impertinence of trying to park their cars on the streets where they live, work, and shop.

Mrs Angry gets an awful lot of blog visits from Westminster City Council these days.

Welcome, new friends. 

Hope you enjoy the new entente cordiale, between your authority and ours. 

The entente between your authority and the Barnet blogosphere, we must warn you, will be strictly limited, on an interim basis, and may be less than cordiale, at times. 

But here is a curious thing. About our new Monitoring Officer.

Our new Monitoring Officer is not our Monitoring Officer, exactly, - and he is not leaving Westminster City Council. 

We are sharing the attentions of Mr Large with his current employers. Despite the claim made in a statement last week that the new MO had been seconded to Barnet, which rather implies that he is working exclusively for us.

Yes: despite all the criticisms levelled at Barnet by Claer Lloyd-Jones' report in regard to our shared legal services, we have now engaged a part time Monitoring Officer - and on a temporary basis only. 

We find ourselves, in short, in the position of, say, an MP's wife who wakes up to find her husband in the papers for further extra-marital misbehaviour, having been told, following an unfortunate incident involving paisley pyjamas, that it will never happen again, darling.

I feel so betrayed, don't you, readers? And as always, yes, as always, the last to know.

Mrs Angry understands that, rather astonishingly, the appointment of Mr Large to his role in Barnet was not divulged to Labour group members in Westminster, until the day after the deal was agreed, and that the news only emerged through other sources, which, if true, would be a pretty extraordinary state of affairs, would it not?

It seems Westminster's MO has been helping Barnet, 'assisting' us, for a period of two weeks before an 'urgent' situation arose, ie on the 9th October, which suddenly required the immediate appointment of Mr Large to a formal, if rather limited, role in Barnet. 

Oh. Why was it sudden? Did they not foresee the outcome of a report that delivered such a damning indictment of our legal services and governance? Or did they really not predict the level of censure and criticism that the report has provoked? Clearly, by sitting on the report and sneaking it into tomorrow night's committee, they had hoped to keep it quiet for as long as possible, but still ...

And then: it seems Westminster opposition members have been reassured that their Monitoring Officer's Saturday job in Barnet will not 'impact' his duties at Westminster City Council. 

Really?  

So ... either Mr Large is:

a. not exactly rushed off his feet at WCC, or:

b. has no intention of working up a sweat on our behalf, here in Broken Barnet.

What on earth is going on? 

Does anyone actually know? 

Questions that must be asked:

• When, exactly, did Maryellen Salter leave her role as Monitoring Officer?

• How long has  she been absent?

• In her absence, who was the nominated deputy, as required by the law? Or were we just bumbling along, taking informal advice and 'assistance' from Mr Large? What was HBPublic Law's role during this period?

• Is the truth that Barnet, criticised by Ms Lloyd-Jones for being in a position now where it does not know what it does not know, has been operating without anyone formerly confirmed in what is a statutory role?

• Does such a possibility not raise the risk that further legal and governance decisions have been wrongly actioned?

• How can a failure in competence on the scale identified by Ms Lloyd-Jones' investigation be addressed by an authority relying on a part time Monitoring Officer?

• Why was the appointment of Mr Large only made at the end of last week, a week of intense media speculation, but apparently little political reaction from the Tory leader and his group?

• If members of Westminster City Council was not aware of the arrangement, why not, and why were such negotiations kept secret? 

• Was Richard Cornelius aware of the appointment and involved in the decision, or was he - yet again - presented by a fait accompli by his senior management team?

• How much longer can the Chief Executive remain in post?.

• Ditto the Barnet Tory 'leader'?

• Who wants to start a sweepstake?

As Mr Reasonable explains here: 

http://reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/a-critical-week-in-barnet.html

... there are tonight two council meetings during the course of which a restructuring of senior management will be discussed, supposedly to make savings, but actually creating more pointless and costly senior posts, with the usual self aggrandising job titles. 

As Mr R suggests, there is a better case, now, for deleting the post of Chief Executive, and merging his functions with that of the Chief Operating Officer (sorry, Mr Naylor: without any unwarranted increase in salary). Will this happen? Probably not. But that is not to say that the current CEO is safe in his post.

Tomorrow night sees the Policy and Resources Committee to which Claer Lloyd-Jones' devastating report will be submitted. 

So, yes: another interesting week ahead, in Broken Barnet ...