NYC: ‘Unfair’ Standards Hearings

NYC: ‘Unfair’ Standards Hearings

• – an “In My View”article by NIGEL WARD, investigating the apparent cover-up of fatal deficiencies within the Councillors’ Code of Conduct Complaint-handling regime at North Yorkshire Council (NYC) – including its impact on Town & Parish Councils in North Yorkshire.

~~~~~

A few days ago, a copy of an email arrived in the NYE newsroom from a highly reputable source in North Yorkshire (email reproduced at the foot of this article).

This email was signed off by Ms Jennifer NORTON (pictured above left), the Assistant Director Legal & Deputy Monitoring Officer (DMO) at North Yorkshire Council (NYC), in response to Complaints from the public that NYC’s policy and practice of handling Code of Conduct Complaints is seriously defective.

I have previously published that NYC, during its first year of operations (1st April 2023 to 31st March 2024) handled a huge total of 174 Code of Conduct Complaints against elected members (far and away the most Code of Conduct Complaints received by any UK Council), every one of which was dismissed by the DMO, in consultation with the NYC Independent Person (IP) for Standards, Ms Richinda TAYLOR, formerly IP at SBC, Ms TAYLOR was appointed to NYC on 19th July 2023 (pictured above right).

These dismissals were conducted without the Standards & Governance Committee ever being engaged or granted an opportunity to adjudicate or to make any substantive decision – and without any sanction of any kind whatever being recorded or issued. Its effect is to produce an entirely misleading portrayal of members’ conduct being ‘squeaky’ clean and thus effectively impervious to allegations of whatever degree of severity.

Commonsense insists that something must be very badly wrong with the Complaint-handling regime at NYC. Granted that some Complaints (one would hope, a very small number) may be trivial or even frivolous (“I saw Councillor SNODGRASS spit on the grass verge”), it beggars reasonable belief that not one of 174 Complaints (number elicited under FOIA) concerned a well-evidenced and adequately-documented allegation of some relatively serious breach or other of the NOLAN Principles and/or the terms of s.28 of the Localism Act 2011 (the legislation that governs Councillors’ conduct).

In my view, Ms NORTON’s email clearly attempts to cover-up a number of deficiencies in the Code of Conduct Complaint-handling processes at NYC.

I know from my own contact with the Complaints regime at NYC that its handling process is designed to ensure that no Complaint can ever be properly investigated or recorded as UPHELD.

The Complainant, usually (but not always) a member of the public, must submit a detailed and evidenced written Complaint, which is (quite properly) then scrutinised and shared  with both the ‘Subject Member’ and by the staff of the Monitoring Officer at NYC. The so-called ‘Subject Member’ (i.e. the Councillor accused of breaching the Code of Conduct) may then submit a response to NYC, but this is arbitrarily ‘deemed’ CONFIDENTIAL and hence it cannot be seen or challenged by the Complainant.

This is manifestly unfair – it assures a huge bias in favour of the Subject Member and denies the Complainant the opportunity to provide evidence that the Subject Member has misrepresented the truth (i.e lied). For those who imagine that this could never happen, I will herein produce evidence that it most certainly does.

NYC’s refusal to allow the Complainant access to the Subject Member’s input (i.e. defence statement/evidence) – or that of any third-party witness(es) – inevitably protects the Subject Member from legitimate scrutiny and is not in compliance with the letter or the spirit of the statutory criteria necessary for a ‘fair hearing’ (I will return to this term presently). The Subject Member is thereby free to submit an unsubstantiated (perhaps unsubstantiable) ‘defence’ that is guaranteed to be free from any challenge or susceptible to compelling counter-evidence. Effectively, a falsified statement amounts to a “get-out-of-jail-free-card”.

A Typical Example

A typical example is the Code of Conduct Complaint concerning Whitby Town Mayor, Councillor Bob “Pants on Fire” DALRYMPLE who, in his ‘defence statement’, asserted to the MO’s office that having admitted and acknowledged certain ‘procedural improprieties’ in his conduct (both within the Council Chamber – recorded on video – and in archived email correspondence), then having falsely claimed to have rendered a suitable apology to the Complainant. The Complaint was subsequently dismissed under the rubric ‘NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED‘. The Complainant was then refused sight of DALRYMPLE’s false assertion and the matter closed down with the Complainant denied opportunity to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt and with corroborating evidence that DALRYMPLE’s assertion to the Investigators was a bare-faced lie.

This flagrant injustice was covered in humiliating (for the Mayor) detail in the following articles on the North Yorks Enquirer:

• “Brand Yourself a Fool . . .”(pub. 05/07/24)
• “WTC: NO CONFIDENCE Time Again?”(pub. 29/11/24)

The point-blank refusal by North Yorkshire Council to provide Complainants with  “all of the relevant information on how a public authority’s decision was reached” stands contrary to the requirements of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, upon which topic the British Institute of Human Rights (https://www.bihr.org.uk/get-informed/what-rights-do-i-have/the-right-to-a-fair-trial) offers the following plain-English clarification:

As Ms NORTON concedes in her email (below), it is the approved PRACTICE and POLICY of North Yorkshire Council NOT to provide the Complainant with the ‘relevant information’, even on request, on how the decision NOT to investigate was determined – a clear demonstration of an UNFAIR – and thereby unlawful – Hearing.

The responses from the Subject Member can often contain factually incorrect, misleading or plainly false assertions – LIES – in an attempt to wriggle out of the allegations, as there are no checks or balances to incentivise the accused to do otherwise.

To add insult to injury, the final assessment record (or Decison Notice) states unequivocally that the decision is ‘NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL‘. Case closed; nothing to see here, folks. Every elected member is rubber-stamped ‘squeaky’ clean.

Guidance to The Human Rights legislation states:

Notwithstanding Ms NORTON’s irrelevant assertion (in her her email reproduced below), namely:

• • “The member who is the subject of a complaint is not a ‘defendant’ in court proceedings. I make this point to clarify that the standing of the complaint process which you appear to be conflating with litigation proceedings. They are different.”

Ms NORTON is partially correct, but only insofar as the Standards regime is not ‘court proceedings’. However, North Yorkshire Council is “a public authority” – and one that does make (and has made – on at least 174 occasions) decisions that have an impact on Complainants’ civil rights.

I would suggest that 174 Complainants in 2023/24 had their civil rights breached, thwarted and obstructed because NYC, by refusing to disclose ‘relevant information’, adamantly refuses to conduct “fair hearings”. This matter is now before the Council’s External Auditors (Forvis Mazars).

Ms NORTON goes on to state of the process that:

• • “it makes no determination as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations or comments”

In my view, this amounts to a tacit admission that the process is NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE – for if the truth of the allegations regarding a member’s conduct bears no relevance to the statutory duty to uphold acceptable standards commensurate with the NOLAN Principles and s.28 of the Localism Act 2011, what possible purpose can it serve – other than to “whitewash” unacceptable conduct?

Any reader who is one of those 174 Complainants should feel free to contact the newsdesk at the NYE – news@nyenquirer.uk

Ms NORTON’s Email

I have provided Ms NORTON with a ‘draft’ copy of this article and offered her a ‘Right of Reply’ but, to date, I have received no response – from which, I draw my own conclusions.