Fall-Out from the Mayor’s Settlement.

Settlement Statement Branded “Devoid of Reality”, “Untrue”. Officers Accused of Obstruction and Bending to Pressure.

Readers will recall that the Mayor of Newham took Newham Council to court, alleging racism and bullying. After much legal wrangling the mayor and the chief executive, (or their lawyers), agreed to settle the case without going to a full hearing.

As part of the settlement, Newham Council would pay the legal costs of the Mayor of Newham up to £30,000 plus VAT. In addition, they would offer an apology for her hurt feelings. And to aid the process, they sought to shift any blame onto the Standards Advisory Committee, which could, they say,  have dealt with matters “differently”.

It was the Standards Advisory Committee (SAC) who chose to investigate allegations of bullying  behaviour by the mayor. They could, of course, have refused to investigate! But that would rather bring into question their raison d’etre. 

It is telling that the statement about the settlement does not suggest what the SAC could, or should have done differently. It does not say what the SAC did that was procedurally improper. Nor does it say whether or how they were acting with bias or malice. Frankly, it doesn’t say anything, it implies.

The seemingly innocuous word sits in the statement allowing the reader to read into it any implication they want to.

Nothing to see here. The mayor, the chief exec, the senior officers, the ‘members’ consultative group’; anyone who might have had a hand in the matter is absolved by the assertion that the SAC might have acted “differently”.  

The chair of the SAC was not at all pleased to be labeled as the one who was responsible for the rather embarrassing matter where the mayor took her own council to court, particularly when Newham took legal advice on the matter from three KCs before the SAC acted. Choudhury states “…the committee conducted its business, all with the advice of internal and external legal advice and scrutiny. Accordingly, I’m in no doubt that the public statement referring to the SAC could have done things differently is a fallacy and devoid of reality. In other words, it is untrue”.

He took steps to rectify the statement, he wanted a formal, minuted meeting and it seemed that the members of his committee supported him. Until they didn’t. 

These are the current members of the committee from the LBN website. Four of the seven are Labour councillors, including the Chief Whip. Unfortunately, we cannot expect one of them to rock the boat.

Standards Committee Membership

Choudhury’s attempt to have a special meeting of the committee was blocked by the Monitoring Officer.

It is evident that Choudhury feels that the Monitoring Officer has not been playing with a straight bat, (words like “discourteous” and “impertinent” have been used in connection with her communications with him). The Monitoring Officer is stated to have “placed obstacles” preventing a special meeting of the SAC to discuss the way in which the SAC had been made into the scapegoat. The Chief Exec is accused of doing the same. It is evident that he believes that the chief exec and the monitoring officer were “leant” on. He does not suggest who by, but there is a very shortlist of potential candidates.

The MO, who is relatively new in post, was not familiar with the history of the issue. Choudhury  remarks that neither the MO nor the MCG (the group of councillors which agreed the compromise) had taken the time to “read the minutes of the committee going back 18 months to 2 years, including the independent investigator’s report” and the legal advice given to the committee.

Instead, the SAC, and the chair in particular, had been thrown “under the bus”.

Of course, he could have ignored it and carried on. Who would have noticed?  Who would have cared?

But it seems that archaic virtues such as honour matter to Mr Choudhury.

His honour and his behaviour have been brought into question, not by clear and unambiguous allegations, but by innuendo and by what feels like the blocking of any attempts to rectify what he asserts is a falsehood.

Consequently, he has resigned. He has clearly lost all confidence in the ability of Newham and of the SAC to act as an independent body, as it is required to. He ponders whether the SAC should simply be done away with as it clearly cannot perform the role for which it was intended.

A Standards Committee which is not free to investigate the behaviour of the senior elected member does sound like a redundant body. In Choudhury’s words, it “is not fit for purpose”.

Why does a spat in a committee of an outer London borough matter? 

Simply because, integrity in the system and trust in those holding office is important.

“In the public sector, Nolan principles are enshrined in the vast majority of these codes of conduct and are both a code of conduct and a way of establishing and maintaining standards by which those in public office can be held to account.”

There are seven Nolan Principles. They all seem to be relevant to this matter. When Lord Nolan reported, there was a stress to go beyond process and to include the culture and behaviour of those in public life.

The seven Nolan Principles are: 

Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership.  Councils have special groups set up to monitor the behaviour of their members and to ensure that they act in accordance with these principles, and where it is suspected that they don’t these groups can investigate and recommend further action. 

In Newham, we have the Standards Advisory Committee.

Oh dear.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?