Cllr David Pugh Cleared Of Breaching Code Of Conduct Rules (Update 5)

We’re just hearing that the Leader of the Isle of Wight council, Cllr David Pugh, has been cleared of breaching the Code of Conduct, as alleged by three other IWC councillors.

The complaints were connected to the aftermath of the incident at the Valentine’s Ball, PughTube, where the Leader of the Isle of Wight council was captured on video swearing loudly at the partner on the Island MP.

The allegations were …

  • Three potential breaches relating to Cllr Pugh’s use of the Communications Department – misuse of his position as council leader to secure an advantage, improper use of the Communications Department for political purposes and compromising the impartiality of those working for the council.
  • The other three potential breaches for investigation relate to Cllr Pugh’s alleged actions towards his guest at the Ball, Rachael Bushby, at the table during the Ball – bullying, intimidation of witness and failing to treat with respect.

Update 13:46
The Decision
The Decision of the Consideration Sub-Committee was that they “Agree with the findings of the Investigating Officer that there has been no breach of the code of conduct.”

The reasons they provided were that “There was no evidence that there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct.

“That the report of the Investigating Officer, suitably redacted to protect third parties, be released to the public.”

Update 14:42
Summary of the Complaint

  • Para 3(1) – You must treat others with respect (Rachael Bushby in relation to events within the ball at the table)
  • Para 3(2)(b) – You must not bully any person (Rachael Bushby in relation to events within the ball at the table)
  • Para 3(2)(c) – You must not intimidate or attempt to intimidate any person who is likely to be a complainant or witness (Rachael Bushby in relation to events within the ball at the table)
  • Para 3(2)(d) – You must not do anything which compromises or is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf, your authority (Rachael Bushby and the Isle of Wight Council Communication department)
  • Inserted Upon review – Para 5 – You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office into disrepute (Isle of Wight Radio Interview – 23rd February 2010)
  • Para 6(a) – You must not use or attempt to use your position as a member to confer on or secure for yourself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage. (Isle of Wight Council Communication department)
  • Para 6(b) (ii) – You must when using or authorising the use by others of the resources of your authority ensure that such resources are not used improperly for political purposes. (Isle of Wight Council Communication department)

Update: 14:47
Findings of Investigating Officer

In relation to Para 3(1); Para 3(2)(b); Para 3(2)(c)

  • I do not believe there is sustainable evidence to conclude on the balance of probabilities that any overt or covert pressure was placed upon Rachael to act in a particular manner.
  • Whilst I accept the non-referred incident may have been of the type of behaviour that may cause concern, I have seen no evidence to suggest that he treated Rachael with anything other than respect during the evening in question.
  • I have seen no evidence that Cllr Pugh’s actions or conduct towards Rachael amounted to intimidatory behaviour. I have heard no evidence of any particular behaviour that would amount to intimidation or even a series of actions that might cumulatively amount to such.
  • I believe all her actions were voluntary and no action attributable to Cllr Pugh has been evidenced in my enquiry. I believe her actions in attending and leaving with him are consistent with a relationship.

In relation to Para 3(2)(d); Para 6(a); Para 6(b)(ii)

  • I believe that is quite proper that officers sought to moderately manage media enquiries during the week beginning 15th February. I do not find that any such actions were excessive or improper.
  • I further believe that it was proper to seek to establish whether any further adverse publicity would be made by key witnesses to the event.
  • I do not find that Cllr Pugh has breached these paragraphs of the code of conduct.

In relation to Para 5

  • I do not believe Cllr Pugh’s comment caused harm to his office or the authority. I do not believe that his comment diminished his office or the Council to a sufficient degree that would breach the code of conduct.

Update 14:03
Read for yourself
We’ve just processed the fax we were sent, so you’re all able to have a read through the source material we’re dealing with – and hopefully point out parts of the document that you think are relevant – we’ll then add these to the article.

It’s the first time we’ve done this – do let us know what you think.

This document is much longer than the one below, although lots more of it has been redacted

David Pugh – Valentine’s Party 2010 – Report_E_Copy_Redacted as Released to Public

Below is the initial document that we received form the council.

18 Nov.2010 David Pugh Valentines Ball Standards Cleared

Many readers comments previously
The stories that VentnorBlog published around the incident received some of the most readers’ comments that we’ve had on VB

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
24 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Itch you can't scratch
18, November 2010 2:11 pm

Well no surprise there then. The monkeys have applauded the organ grinder. Busby (who now lives with David) will keep her mouth shut not only to protect him but to keep her job. It’s all so horribly ugly and predictable.Don’t forget to say an extra “thankyou baby Jesus” David at church cos yer a christian aren’t you? If thats whats waiting in heaven I won’t bother thanks.… Read more »

Robbo
Reply to  Itch you can't scratch
18, November 2010 3:10 pm

No surprise at all. An ‘investigation’ by someone who, with the best will in the world wasn’t going to be able to find against the the leader of the council if they wanted their career to continue unhindered.

docile denny
Reply to  Itch you can't scratch
21, November 2010 3:41 pm

Little concerned here reading this blog. Are you saying that Rachel lives with David Pugh? A council employee living with the leader of the council? I am sorry but have these two got no sense whatsoever. What does it look like to the outside world, no doubt her job is safe and she isn’t one of the 300 under threat. [part of comment removed by moderator].

OAP
Reply to  docile denny
21, November 2010 5:08 pm

Just started reading all this and yes, it is my understanding that David Pugh now lives with Rachel Busby [part of comment removed by moderator].

No.5
Reply to  OAP
21, November 2010 7:37 pm

So What.

docile denny
Reply to  No.5
21, November 2010 7:56 pm

So what? David Pugh takes the moral high ground against others but when it is him it somehow is different. Let’s wait and see the outcome of the next case against him.

No.5
Reply to  No.5
21, November 2010 8:25 pm

Are you saying he’s not allowed to have a girlfriend?

I don’t think its Pugh taking the moral high ground ( if such a thing exists)..its you!

Covert they ass
Reply to  No.5
21, November 2010 9:16 pm

He hasn’t got girlfriend No 5, he has someone elses wife. Now i agree to a point with “so what” but he is arrogant and judgmental over others, he is a christian and it has over tones for his and her employment. She had a paid weeks bed rest didn’t she after the “bust up” A week off that we paid for. So it does matter from… Read more »

OAP
Reply to  No.5
21, November 2010 10:18 pm

What do you mean ‘so what’ No 5?

I can’t make up my mind if you are really as arrogant and self-opinionated as you make yourself out to be or if you do it deliberately for your own amusement.

No.5
Reply to  No.5
21, November 2010 11:08 pm

what the hell difference does it make who Pugh lives with…..all this personality assasination detracts from the real job of getting him out of a job based on his inability to run a council.

I find it demeening that others stoop to levels that they criticize in others

No.5
Reply to  No.5
21, November 2010 11:10 pm

I don’t beleive that this is true…and again, if it is, so what!!!! loads of ‘married’ people live with other people

docile denny
Reply to  No.5
22, November 2010 7:40 am

David Pugh uses the moral highground when it suits him – in other words to get where he wants. He has used it against colleagues to get rid of them. He is a judgemental of others but then does what he condems in others himself. As for what is wrong in living with a married employee of the council, come on No5 HE IS THE LEADER. What… Read more »

No.5
Reply to  OAP
22, November 2010 9:49 am

Then an employment tribunial or standards will get another report.

But you are just guessing this is happening and by slinging moral muck about you are proving yourself as despicable as he is.

The gossip squad are back

Known
18, November 2010 3:42 pm

Congratulations to whomever compiled this report. Hardly a mention of VentnorBlog in there (or at least in what we plebs can read!). Quite a spectacular achievement considering without VB publishing their first story, none of this would have come to light in the first place!

Joan L
19, November 2010 7:31 am

Thanks for such clear reporting. Laying it all open for all to read and understand. The island’s and most other local area’s never seen anything like it.

steve s
19, November 2010 7:38 am

‘…and subsequently posted on an internet video sharing website called “You tube”‘ :-)

Who’s Gazza?!

romeantique
21, November 2010 12:04 pm

This heavily redacted document is no more than the opinion of the Principle Lawyer employed by the Isle of Wight Council. If they paid me what they pay him I would certainly tell them what they want to hear. This whole question is pivotal on whether Pugh was acting as leader of the council during the incident in the car park. He himself consulted the monitoring officer… Read more »

romeantique
Reply to  romeantique
21, November 2010 12:12 pm

Also what was the actual previous case which the legal advise from the Council Officer used to block consideration of the actual swearing incident itself?

The councillors feel it is flawed as it was based on a judgement in another case which has subsequently been criticised.

What is this case?

I now pronounce you…
22, November 2010 8:09 am

So No 5 loads of ‘married people’ live with other people. Are you suggesting that because a sizable numbers of people do something that makes it acceptable maybe even desirable? Numbers cancel responsibilities do they? The mess of divorce and the fall out for all concerned is ok cos….well….lots do it. [part of comment removed by moderator] Having sad that, the context here is also important. Busby… Read more »

No.5
Reply to  I now pronounce you…
22, November 2010 9:45 am

Get over yourself…..thousands of people have second lives very successfully and you have no grounds for your baseless assumptions.

romeantique
Reply to  I now pronounce you…
22, November 2010 11:39 am

Is Pugh a Freemason?

Barney McGrew
Reply to  romeantique
22, November 2010 1:18 pm

No – they wouldn’t have him.

romeantique
22, November 2010 10:29 am

The media management was considered necessary as a damage limitation exercise due to the Council leaders involvement in anti-social behaviour bringing the council into disrepute. Yet we are told David Pugh wasn’t on duty as Council leader. Therefore his actions can bring the Council into disrepute regardless of their claims that he wasn’t on duty. This is inconsistent, as usual they are having their cake and eating… Read more »

Black Dog
22, November 2010 4:35 pm

I have read all your comments about on the matter and find it all very informative. If I were David Pugh I would be very very worried as he is no longer in control of his own destiny, it is his partner Ms. Busby that has the upper hand from here on in. Think about – David Pugh is now and through his own doing is between… Read more »

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined