She said that “At the
General Purposes Committee we acted in support of the Chief Executive’s rights
against complaints we did this because we used factual evidence and we were
guided by our sense of social justice and our integrity”. I agree that Fenner
and Poole “acted to support the Chief Executive” but certainly not from the
standpoint of social justice and integrity.
On the contrary, Fenner and Poole used all their influence as members of the
General Purposes Committee to undermine, cover-up and nobble my complaint and ensure
that the Chief Executive’s actions were never properly investigated. It was
only the Conservatives, Independent and UKIP councillors voting together that
prevented Fenner and Poole from sweeping one of the most serious
complaints Thanet Council has ever received under the carpet.
Of course as discerning readers with a healthy distrust of politicians
you have every right to think that I am exaggerating my claims and bigging up
my own position. But hang on. The Council’s Monitoring Officer, Mr Harvey Patterson, an experienced local
government lawyer who was responsible for ensuring that the Council acts in
accordance with the law, issued a 13 page letter supported by 20 pages of
documents alleging that Fenner and Hart acted in ways aimed at undermining the investigation my complaint.
About Fenner he alleges that she “appears to consider it
appropriate to use subterfuge and concealment in a crude attempt to mislead the
Monitoring Officer. .. conduct such as this falls short of the Nolan principles of
openness, honest and transparency that underpin and govern conduct in public
life. As Cllr. Fenner has also chosen to disregard of my advice that she has no
power to instruct (a senior human resources manager) to become involved, I consider that her
conduct brings her office into disrepute”. He adds that the conduct of Cllr
Fenner and (a senior human resources manager employee) calls into question the
integrity of the investigation as well the propriety of Cllr Fenner's and (a
senior human resources manager) involvement in it. He concludes that Fenner
conduct “suggests to me that (she)
should not have had any involvement in the determination of Cllr Driver's
complaints”
Which takes us to
ex-Council Leader Clive Hart in respect of whom Mr Patterson’s letter says that when he explained to Hart how I
managed to obtain a copy of an e-mail (I
borrowed it from a file) which appeared to show improper interference in the
Council’s planning process by a senior officer
“the Leader's
first utterance…. was to ask
whether Cllr. Driver's theft of a Council document had been reported to the police. As the Leader had previously
been a long serving member of the Planning Committee I was taken aback by his
apparent indifference to the existence of the e-mail of 29 May 2013, only to the
circumstances of its discovery and the identity of the discoverer. I
nonetheless explained exactly what had happened and that it would be difficult
to allege theft - and intention to permanently deprive the owner - as the
document in question had been copied back to the Council and Cllr.Driver had
agreed to return the original”.
But it didn’t
stop there. Mr Patterson alleges in his letter that Hart contracted the Chief
Executive requesting that I should be
reported to the police for stealing a
council e-mail even though I had informed
the council I had taken it and returned it after copying. This rather unusual
step of asking someone who is being
complained about to call the police on the complainant was described by Mr
Patterson as “constituting a serious
error of judgement on his part”.
Mr Patterson was dismissed from his post, by the
Council’s Chief Executive, less than 48
hours after sending his letter to members of the Council’s General Purposes
Committee. Several days after his
dismissal both Fenner and Poole voted against a Conservative Party
motion to investigate the issues raised
by Mr Patterson’s letter. In effect
Fenner had voted to prevent an investigation into her own and ex-Council Leader
Hart’s actions. A breath-taking
act of dishonest
self-preservation if ever there was one!
So there you have it, the ex-Leader of Thanet Council and 2 of his
senior colleagues acting in such a way as to prevent an investigation into
serious allegations about improper interference into a planning application.
This is one of the hidden reasons what Hart was forced to resign as leader and
his supporters forced from the Cabinet. I sincerely hope that new leader
Councillor Iris Johnston will now make sure that a fair and thorough investigation without any interference is now allowed to
take place without further delay.
Although Hart, Poole and Fenner have now been
removed from (almost all) positions of influence at Thanet Council. I think it
is beholden upon the Labour Party to launch a full investigation into the
actions of these three councillors who, in my opinion, have brought their party
into considerable disrepute. If found guilty they should be expelled from the
Labour Party. But in the sad event that Labour covers-up the actions of its
members and fails to act, you can exercise your right not to vote for the this shameful
trio in 2015.
Poole and Fenner 'partners'? Thought they were both happily married to others?
ReplyDeleteOff topic sorry Ian but I hear your in favour of manstons CPO I hope this is not true as you were the only Councillor making any sense but if you beleave a CPO for manston with tax payers money is a good idea then ill lose all faith in you
ReplyDelete11:37, a CPO would, at the very least, place the future use of Manston in the hands of the local authority, democratically elected by the people of Thanet, rather than at the whims of a private owner potentially looking for the best cash return rather than the best option for us. The use of taxpayers money, sensibly invested, could provide the local people with the return rather than some absentee owner walking off with mega bucks. If Ian supports a sensible approach to looking into the feasibility of a CPO then, whilst he might have lost your faith, he will have gained mine on this issue.
DeleteThe behaviour of these people is so strange that I cannot help thinking that they have been 'got at' by Common Purpose. They seem utterly convinced that they were doing the right thing.(!?!)
ReplyDeleteIt's not this trio you shouldn't vote for. It's the whole rotten lot of them. For years, the main parties on TDC have whipped their members into line to cover up what they have done. You only have to look at Pleasurama. It's a massive blot on the landscape, yet neither main party nor any individual has received a word of criticism for what they did. Nor have they held a proper inquiry into what went wrong. This means it could happen all over again, because nobody has acknowledged the mistakes which were made. Another example would be Transeuropa. The public saddled with millions of pounds of debt....yet nobody is to blame. Councillors have consistently put the interests of their parties above the interests of their constituents. If they fail to demand an inquiry into the actions of the gang of three they are just covering up again.
ReplyDeleteBe VERY careful before backing a CPO. There are debts associated with Manston and you HAVE TO be very, very sure that you aren't buying the liabilities as well as the land. With Patterson's departure I would be asking whether there is anybody left at TDC with enough legal background to ask the right questions. I'm quite sure that any council solicitor worth his or her salt would be insisting on a trip to Lincoln's Inn Fields....but you HAVE TO ask the right questions.
ReplyDelete