A senior officer at Cheshire East Council has been suspended as a result of the Lyme Green fiasco.
Cheshire East announced today that, following a meeting of the Lyme Green staffing sub-committee last week, a senior member of staff has been suspended from work pending further action by the sub-committee.
The officer concerned has not been named.
The sub-committee was established in the wake of the Lyme Green affair and acts in an investigating and disciplinary capacity.
The Chairman, Councillor Howard Murray, stated that he wished to make it 'crystal clear' that the act of suspension is considered by the Council to be a neutral act intended to protect all parties.
One of the committee's duties is to consider the recommendations made in an investigation report by a Designated Independent Person (DIP) which was completed in December.
Councillor Murray went on to say: "I realise than many people are now demanding to have sight of the report by the DIP. I understand their interest.
"However, a report by a DIP is specifically exempt from Freedom of Information requests and there are other legal requirements that severely limit its distribution.
"I cannot say the report will never be made available, which is for others to decide, but any form of release at this time would at the least be very unhelpful and may well jeopardise the legal process we are following."
He added: "It should by now be clear to most people that the sub-committee has been diligent, fair and effective in the handling of this task.
"If the time, effort and expense of getting to this point is not to be wasted then the sub-committee must be allowed to conclude its work - and this includes the exhaustion of any related appeals, unhindered and without distraction."
The suspension of a senior officer follows the resignation of Cabinet member Councillor Rod Menlove last week. Cllr Menlove was responsible for this area as Environment Portfolio Holder and announced that stepping down was "the only honourable course of action" for him to take.
In December 2012 two senior officers, whose actions were investigated in relation to the Council's proposal to build a recycling station at Lyme Green Depot in Macclesfield, also resigned.
John Nicholson, Strategic Director Places and Organisational Capacity, and Caroline Elwood, Borough Solicitor, resigned just days after the confidential report by a DIP, into the causes of the failure of the Lyme Green development project, was completed and passed to the Council's staffing sub committee for consideration.
A review published last summer revealed that the Council had spent over £800,000 of taxpayers money on the shelved Lyme Green scheme, the main contractor had started work on the site before planning permission was obtained and officers did not comply with EU Procurement Regulations or ensure there was effective reporting to members of the Council.
Cheshire East Council has announced that whilst the DIP report must remain confidential, they will shortly be publishing a report which "will tackle the serious management failings identified by the independent investigator, by making bold and sweeping changes to the Council's management structures and ways of working".
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Is none of this behaviour a police matter? If I take £800,000 of someone else's money and dissipate it in some inappropriate, and possibly illegal, manner, will I be arrested, and possibly charged for my behaviour? Or does being associated with a Local Authority deliver some kind of immunity from the laws that binds the rest of us? Does resignation mean that you walk away with a large payout, don't have to face up to your alleged actions, or any potential sanctions?
Still waiting to see what questions, if any, will be asked of the Councillors who had responsibility for the officers involved in this. If the Councillors are not up to the job of controlling the officers, should they be there in the first place?
So fed up with public servants at every level enjoying a lifestyle, arrogance and immunity denied to the rest of the population.
This serious issue continues to gain pace and attract growing public attention and quite rightly so. I wholeheartedly agree with Elaine Napier's comments (Tuesday, 15th Jan, 2013 2:52 pm).
I do however believe that until the findings and the resulting decisions are made by Councillor Murray and co, we should have faith in the process as we understand it. That is not to say people should be unconcerned, asking for further information of public representatives is a right we share. Indeed I am certain members of the sub-committee will want it that way too.
No right minded and fair person will agree that the 'fallen' should further benefit from the trappings of public office; if there is impropriety then due process will deal with this openly in the public domain. I certainly do not consider the expenses claimed and other special payments 'a pittance' either, but I believe these are being addressed in a completely separate forum. If the recipients or their supporters are dissatisfied with this then think carefully when next you vote for your friends and relatives.
In any event if impropriety is believed to have occurred in the 'dealings' of our public servants, then I suggest the "the only honourable course of action" is to report them to the proper authorities with complete transparency of the facts and save us from further embarrassment and insult with more machinations from the inner sanctum.
Looking through Exemption Guidance for Freedom of Information, it states there are 23 circumstances where information may be exempt. As far as I can see a report by a Designated Independent Person to and elected Local Authority is not one of these.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/information-access-rights/foi-guidance-for-practitioners/exemptions-guidance
It appears that CEC is already considering a request under the FOI Act regarding this matter:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_report_of_the_designated_ind
Peter Taylor (Tuesday, 15th Jan, 2013 4:37 pm) has made an interesting point ref. FOI Act. Having scanned through the exemption guide, I would suggest Sections 36 and 40 could be the tools to support Councillor Murray's position statement? Furthermore, put the Data Protection and Human Rights Acts alongside the FOI Act and it would make any demand for information in this instance quite impossible, if as stated ‘other legal requirements’ are involved.
I did see the request to CEC under FOI Act last week; their response will probably not be a surprise.
Due process is all we can entrust in those responsible at the moment, and some of the members must be in very difficult positions morally and otherwise. But we must continue to ask questions, as a great deal of people suspect a level of impropriety is involved and dare I say cowardice rather than honourable decisions have and will be made.
I maintain that the public interest in seeing the report outweighs the harm to any individual named within it. I am sure Cllr Murray has been advised - but I submit wrongly - that the report is exempt from release. Personal information may potentially be exempt from release under s40, but it is subject to the public interest tests. The relevant test is not actually under the FoI Act exemptions, but under the Data Protection Act. Since no deeply personal information is likely to be in the report (bank account details, addresses, personal opinions by colleagues) then I believe the threshold of whether harm to the individual from release outweighing the public interest in release has not been met. s36 is a very high standard to reach - just because something is embarrassing is not sufficient. There are very few examples of councils being allowed to hide behind s36, and they apparently have to get consent from the ICO prior to relying on it.
In similar circumstances in Wirra recentlyl, the council decided to release the report of the DIP:
http://www.wirral.gov.uk/downloads/5295
So, I believe there is enough precedent to require the disclosure, despite public statements by Cllr Murray to the contrary.
I certainly do not wish to prejudice the fair treatment of any officer or councillor in any disclosure - merely wish to understand why Cllr Jones - the current leader and portfolio holder for finance at the time our money was wasted - can escape any form of criticism.