A sad day for freedom of speech at the ERYC

Yesterday I could not support the proposals for a new Standards Regime being put forward by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council.

I certainly feel our present bureaucratic standards system is broken; it wastes time and costs a fortune, this money could be better spent elsewhere. So why replace it with something almost exactly the same?

I support the principles regarding standards in the Government’s Localism Bill, those concerning pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests and accordance with the Nolan report’s 7 ‘Principles of public life’: Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership. In other words I could support all those recommendations in the Council’s proposed new ‘Code of Conduct’ that dealt with probity and rooting out sleaze, and also those that dealt with interests, expenses, backhanders, cases of whiskey and brown envelopes, and bullying.

There is no mention of disrepute anywhere in those 7 Nolan principles and I could not support the inclusion of ‘bringing our office or authority into disrepute’ into a new Code of Conduct, something that seeks to control and curtail free speech – and gives an opportunity for members of the public, fellow members and council officers to harass elected Councillors – and, be in no doubt this is exactly what it serves to do, I and many others know this from bitter personal experience.

This was our chance to come up with a system that was radical and modern, simple to understand, fair to all and significantly more difficult to abuse then the present system. The Council should have looked at the cost to the taxpayer and devised something that was more efficient and cheaper to run by rooting out vexatious and frivolous complaints at the beginning of the process. One simple way of doing this was to not include ‘bringing our office or authority into disrepute’, the basis of many complaints.

There is no mention of savings to the Council in the report presented yesterday; I assume therefore that there are no savings. So when this new regime is implemented how is it to be paid for - from savings elsewhere?

The other and most serious concern was the startling omission of a ‘right of appeal’ – this could not be, and for me killed the proposal stone dead.

A working group including of members of the present Standards Committee (including Labour and Independent Group leaders) and Cabinet members was set up to look at the existing regime and come up with something different, in my opinion there did not appear to be the radical and creative thinking to come up with something new. I questioned the composition of the working group and if they were not too close to the trees to see the wood? (I had even volunteered to be part of the group)

The questionnaire sent to all my fellow Councillors with the answers already filled in by the working group of elite members - would have done credit to the pre-Glasnost Soviet Union.

I said that I felt it smacked of being overly top down, and it is likely Parish and Town Councils will have the same impression when this is put this forward as an example for them to sign up to. What the ERYC is recommending is that if a Parish or Town Councillor is accused of breaking the ‘Code of Conduct’ they will appear before a panel of ERYC Councillors who will determine their fate – and they will have no right of appeal.

This is exactly why I stated we must have full consultation, the Parish and Town Councillors must buy into this and for them to do so they have to have a sense of ownership – not for them to feel they are being dictated to.

I felt the Code must reflect the 7 Nolan principles of public life - nothing else, anything else is surplus and only included to unfairly restrict Elected Members right to freedom of speech, the right to challenge the Council’s officers and the executive, and to campaign on whatever cause or issue they choose. Unfortunately the new Code serves to do this.

I heard it said only last week from a member of the working group that if member didn’t misbehave they wouldn’t be subject to a complaint to the Standards Committee – unbelievable!

As many readers will know I’ve been subject to some 8 complaints over 4 years and yes one person has been behind most of them. I was bizarrely convicted on just one occasion - my crime ‘bringing my office and my authority into disrepute’ over allowing comments by others to be published on my blog. The overwhelming consensus is that I’d done nothing wrong - except speak out, speak up for, challenge, campaign and work for the people who elected me - Has all this affected how I’m viewed with the electorate? Yes it certainly has - they voted for me in such numbers to top the poll in Howdenshire at the last election.

Needless to say only Cllr Matthew Grove, Cllr Mike Whitehead, Cllr John Whittle and I voted against the adoption of the new Standards Regime as proposed by the working group – a sad day for freedom of speech at County Hall

A Happy & Successful New Year to all readers

Once again, many thanks to all of you for taking the time to read my blog this past year. It has been an interesting year for me as a blogger, with an increased readership and an all-time high for hits on one day in November – the day after I was hauled before the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Standards Committee over comments made by others on the blog.

To see the story rocket around cyberspace and be re-posted on so many blogs and websites, including by Tim Montgomerie on conservativehome, and to read all the comments, emails and messages of support, meant that the minimal censure the Committee imposed became somewhat meaningless. The wider debate in the media clearly indicated that freedom of speech will not be stifled.

The wonder of Google means that many of my old blogposts still get regular hits, and the increased use of Facebook and Twitter (follow me at #paul12clear) has resulted in many more re-postings.

2011 has been a really good year for me personally, with many ups - but surprisingly few downs. Amongst other achievements, I have managed to get the new company website up and running – and, yes, it has its own blog which can be found here.

One of the year’s highlights was being re-elected to represent Howdenshire in May’s local elections. The fantastic numbers of votes I received from all the parishes (including the Gilberdyke Parish Council election) that make up Howdenshire, vindicated the stance I had taken on a number of issues. These ranged from wind farms, landfill sites, affordable housing and flood relief, to senior Council employee early retirement packages. The election saw an increase in the Conservative majority and brought some really good new councillors to County Hall. The age profile of councillors was brought a little more into line with the area demographics with the election of the youthful duo of Josh Newlove (Labour) and Bradley Birmingham (Conservative) both of whom are in their twenties.

The election result was tempered a little by the ERYC Council Leader’s decision to remove me from my previously held position as Chairman of the Goole and Howdenshire Local Action Team, and from the Council’s Planning Committee. The level of support I subsequently received from the public was very humbling and sometimes came from unexpected quarters. I’m really enjoying my role as a backbencher, but people keep reminding me of that famous quote of Arnold Schwarzenegger – “I’ll be back!” - Who knows?

If I could give an award to the community of the year it would be to Spaldington, who went into battle against not one, but two wind farm companies seeking to build giant wind turbines at each side of their village. This community raised in excess of £80,000, employed their own barrister and expert witnesses, and showed true teamwork in putting together a fantastic case at the public enquiry, with the result that one wind farm application was thrown out by the planning inspector and the other conditioned in such a way that the turbines will not be able to operate at full capacity because of noise. It has been an honour and a privilege to work with the people of Spaldington.

A close second would be Gilberdyke, where we have seen a great example of the community taking responsibility for themselves in the construction of the flood relief culvert. This, coupled with the snow clearing efforts at the end of the previous year, shows that localism is alive and kicking here and in many other East Riding villages. The Government’s Localism Act should enable more power, decision making and spending to cascade down to the local level – I for one will be pushing for this to happen in Howdenshire over the next year.

One of my most satisfying experiences was in my role as a governor at Howden Secondary School and Technology College. As a part of ‘Team Howden’ we pulled the school out of special measures in record time and the pupils achieved their best ever exam results at the end of the year. I have every confidence that the momentum will continue and that this year will be even better.

I’ve also enjoyed doing a number of fundraising activities, including the Humber Bridge Midnight Walk (dressed as Elvis!) and speaking about my ‘African Odyssey’ to a number of groups. I had received many requests to talk on this subject and this was the year I finally bit the bullet. I look forward to doing more talks next year, beginning with the W I in February.

In conclusion, I will continue to engage with the community and champion free speech via my blog and other social networking media, or by ‘Witchcraft’ (as some of my colleagues would have it), and who knows - we may see a couple of other ERYC Councillors blogging in the coming year?

It has been a pleasure to represent Howdenshire, and East Riding residents during 2011 and I will do my utmost to speak up for, and fight their causes during 2012.

I wish you all a very Happy and Successful New Year

Am I a victim of 'Double Standards'?

Regular readers of this Blog will be aware of my most recent run-in with the Standards Board - the body who believe in principled local politics, which was set up at your expense to champion and promote high standards of conduct amongst our local politicians - but when is a politician a politician?

After a lengthy and protracted investigation by a highly paid consultant- for which you the taxpayer have to pick up the tab, I was cleared of all of the plethora of spurious and salacious allegations made by the complainant, Mr Mike Whitley, apart from one point for which I received the most insignificant sanction possible, a ‘censure’.

The points at issue appear to be that my blog is somehow considered an ‘official blog’ (as detailed in the Committee’s determination) and through it I conduct ‘the business of the council’ - and whether the Councillors code of conduct can be applied to those of you who comment on posts that I publish. It is clear and obvious that the answer is no in each case with some serious implications for free speech and the rule of law arising from the judgement.

You might have thought that the decision would be the end of it, but no. The details of the case have to be published in a local newspaper. So yesterday, the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Monitoring Officer published a notice detailing the findings. This included all the discredited allegations made against me.

In making his complaints Mr Whitley attempted to hide behind anonymity but was not allowed to do so – given that ruling, it is inconsistent that the complainant’s name was withheld from the notice. This means that the details of the unfounded accusations are laid bare for everyone to see but not the name of the person making them.

In many situations this would be perfectly acceptable but one of the reasons Mr Whitley was not allowed to hide his involvement is his habitual use of the Standards Board. He has made two other unsubstantiated and thoroughly discredited allegations against me and many separate complaints against other members of Gilberdyke Parish Council – all of which had to be investigated at taxpayer’s cost before being thrown out. He also made complaints about me to the Police which were without foundation and also dismissed. Not forgetting a complaint to the Police against the contractors installing the new culvert in Gilberdyke - they were accused of fly tipping the excavated soil at the side of the dyke! The motives for all this I cannot comment on.

Readers will be aware that Mr Whitley is a failed political opponent of mine, and the complaint was made in the run up to the May 2011 elections. Are these the actions of a concerned citizen or a political campaign using the taxpayer to fund a cynical attempt to gain some sort of electoral advantage? It’s not for me to decide.

These facts could not be tested as a part of my defence. Political exchanges between Councillors are considered to be ‘Rough and Tumble’- all part of the process. However this does not apply to candidates who are treated as any other member of the public. There are no standards applied to those would-be politicians seeking office.

So in a nutshell I cannot allow you as my blog readers to express your moderate opinions - but an unelected candidate can make wild, unsubstantiated accusations against me, and my fellow Parish Councillors including such things as embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, hiding money and siphoning off money, and make so many vexatious complaints to the Standards Committee and the Police. All of which are time consuming and costly to investigate – but when these accusations are found to be untrue the complainants name is kept out of the public domain – DOUBLE STANDARDS perhaps?

Thanks for all your support

I would just like to thank all of those who have offered me their support this week and continue to do so – friends, colleagues and those from across the political spectrum and around the world. I thank all of you that have blogged or reposted the story, including those through facebook (or that “form of witchcraft” according to some of my fellow East Riding Tory Councillors…).

The update 2 at the end of the previous blog post shows exactly what for I have been censured for.

Having read the post I realised that I made a startling omission - When making the complaint to the Standards Committee, Mr Whitley attempted to do so under the cloak of anonymity. His request was certainly at odds with his numerous critical letters referring to me in the Goole Times, the Goole Courier and the East Riding Mail, as well as his own Lib Dem site (closed since he deserted the Lib Dems for Labour) - clearly not the actions of a man looking to keep his name out of the public domain. Attempting to anonymously place a complaint to the Standards Committee in the run up to an election, where he was planning to stand against me, is in my opinion nothing short of cynical.

I am at least grateful that this request was not granted by the Standards Committee.

Some of those blogs/sites are carrying this story are:

Conservativehome blog

Taxpayers Alliance website

Carl Minns Blog - A View from Hull

HU12Online - The Hedon blog

John in Gilberdyke blog

and the great reporting by the East Riding Mail at here and especially here

A sad day for bloggers, a sad day for freedom of speech, and a sad day for democracy

Today I had to appear before the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Standards Committee to answer charges that in response to a posting on this blog, I had allowed two specific comments written by others to be published. I was found to have breached the Code of Councillors and received a written censure.

The complaint was brought by Mike Whitley of Gilberdyke, who stood against me as a Labour candidate at the May 2011 East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Gilberdyke Parish Council elections - he failed to be elected to either.

Although disappointed, I certainly feel that the Standards Committee was put in a very difficult position today because of the evidence and recommendation provided by the Council’s Monitoring Officer, and in only censuring me I appreciate that they gave me the absolute minimum punishment they could.

I am particularly disappointed that the evidence provided was as narrow as it was and resulted in the decision being made on a very technical point. Some of the evidence was subjective and some clearly wrong, and both the Monitoring Officer and Investigating Officer have some serious questions they need to answer, and I will be buying them both an English Dictionary for Christmas.

I have been censured not for anything I have said or done but for failing to censor the free speech of Howdenshire residents, who understandably feel strongly about the continued actions of an individual that has put their homes and livelihoods at risk.

I understood we have free speech in this country and unless a comment is defamatory or untrue I will continue to allow free speech and debate on my blog. I did not then and still do not, believe the key comment was defamatory and it is certainly true that Mark Twain did include such events in his novels. I accept that this is subjective and accept that the Committee did not share my understanding of the strength of feeling locally.

The Standards Regime is supposed to deal with wrongdoing in the public interest not give a voice to Political candidates to score points against their opponents. The committee was not allowed to look at the wider context of the repeated and unfounded complaints – (8 times this individual has referred me or Gilberdyke Parish Councillors to the Standards Board and every one cleared) and also reporting me to the Police which was also deemed to be unfounded. Conversely the Investigating Officer was free to attempt to mislead the committee and to raise other matters unrelated to the narrow accusation.

The Political context of the repeated complaints, and the totally untrue comments and accusations the complainant put into the public domain was also not considered.

In short the public has just paid for a failed political stunt.

Councillors who break the law should face the full force of the law - everything else is a matter for the electorate. If a Councillor does not reach the standards expected of them they will not be re-elected. I am at a loss to know what this process has achieved. A censure is meaningless but has cost an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money. A retired officer brought back at who knows what rates to undertake extensive investigations. How much has this cost and what services to our residents do we cut to pay for this?

If ever there was an example of why the Government is right to abolish this expensive and misused system, this is it. Absolutely nothing has been achieved and no difference has been made apart from the taxpayers get the bill for someone to pursue a personal, vexatious Political agenda.

I will continue blogging!

The East Riding News coverage of the story can be found here

Update - The paper copy of the newspaper article in addition carries an interesting quote from an unnamed fellow ERYC Conservative Councillor at County Hall:

"Many in our group believe facebook and Twitter are akin to witchcraft"

Oh dear, we really do need to drag ourselves into the 21st Century.....


Update 2 - The comment (not written by me) but which I allowed on my blog was, ‘In Mark Twain’s classic literature perpetrators of anti-social activity were stripped, tarred and feathered then ridden out of town on a rail. Not that I would suggest such a thing mind’

“Guidance published by Standards for England about blogging” – because there was other part of the guidance included in the Investigators report I can only assume this is what he used to base his decision and subsequent recommendation – This guidance quite clearly states that a comment has to be defamatory or obscene to be in contravention.

If one looks in the English Dictionary it says that, “defamatory remarks are not true and make people have a bad opinion of someone” (so logically any remarks have to be untrue before they can be defamatory)

The dictionary also states that obscene remarks are, “indecent, disgusting or likely to deprave or corrupt”

I’m still at a loss, because the advice I was given supported my thinking that there is nothing that could be considered UNTRUE, INDECENT, DISCUSTING or LIKELY TO DEPRAVE OR CORRUPT in the comment.