Yesterday (Wednesday) Shanklin county councillors Richard Priest and Jon Gilbey – who both recently resigned from the group of Island Independents – wrote to all members advising they would not be attending tonight’s Scrutiny Committee which is due to consider the call-in of the ‘Capital Programme Contingency Budget – Bids for Resources and Prioritisation of Key Capital Projects’ paper.
They said,
Dear Colleagues
Further to guidance from the monitoring officer, please find attached our letter in respect of our not being able to attend tomorrows meeting of scrutiny, and the call in of the Capital Contingency fund report.
Kind Regards Richard & Jon Gilbey
The letter (reproduced in full below) sets out a series of questions to the monitoring officer.
‘A bit of a cop out’
In response to their email, Cllr Geoff Lumley (Lab), the chair of the Scrutiny Committee, has today openly disagreed with the advice from the monitoring officer, adding that if the councillors don’t attend the meeting to explain their concerns with the paper that has been called-in, that it would be seen as ‘a bit of a cop out’.
Cllr Lumley wrote,
Jon/Richard
Thanks for this. For what its worth I would not agree with the advice given by the Monitoring Officer if I were in your shoes. Knowing people in your ward is NOT a personal interest and if it was, most Members would find it difficult to do much at all on the Council.
I think you would be better advised to be at Scrutiny this evening where I will be able to give you the opportunity to express what your problem was with the Capital Contingency Budget report. None attendance may be seen as a bit of a cop out!
Regards, Geoff, as Chair of Scrutiny
Questions for monitoring officer
The email to all members by Cllrs Priest and Gilbey contained a letter to the monitoring officer which read,
To: Mrs Davina Fiore, Monitoring Officer, Isle of Wight Council
From: Cllr Richard Priest, Cllr Jonathan Gilbey
Date: 24th September 2014Dear Ms Fiore,
CODE OF CONDUCT
We are writing to you in your capacity as the Monitoring Officer of the Isle of Wight Council in relation to recent events.
We are grateful to you for meeting with us on 22nd September, to discuss these matters and for your statement at the Full Council Meeting on 17th September in which you kindly confirmed that we have consistently followed your guidance in respect of matters relating to Rush Close. We have similarly, as you know, now followed your advice in respect of the Capital Contingency Fund Report.
Comments on these matters which impact seriously and adversely upon our reputations have been made by members of the Executive through both traditional media and social media. Comments have also been made by Members of the Executive about other elected Members and even about officers of the Council.
Against that background, we would be most grateful if you were able to consider and respond to the following points:
1. Given the serious allegations now made by Executive Members (forwarded separately), have any of these members submitted a complaint under the Code of Conduct?
2. Do you consider that on the evidence available either of the signatories to this letter have breached the provisions of the Code of Conduct in relation to the way we have behaved in relation to either Rush Close or the Capital Contingency Fund Report?
3. If you consider that we have not breached the provisions of the Code (in particular its requirement that Members act with integrity, objectivity, accountability and openness) could you please advise how best in your view we resolve these matters in such a way as to maintain our reputations for integrity and so that the continuing presence of these most serious allegations on the public record does not risk bringing our office or the Isle of Wight Council itself into disrepute?
4. In the light of the Report of the recent Peer Review of the Council, whether it might now be appropriate to approach the Local Government Association to arrange training for Members, particularly those who serve in the Executive, on the use of media and social media, and the need to secure advice from chief finance officers and/or monitoring officers when reaching decisions?
5. What remedies are available to Members and/or officers when inaccurate statements are published through the media/social media particularly by members of the Executive?
6. We understand that members of the Scrutiny Committee are calling in the Capital Contingency Fund Report. We would also wish to put on record that we have both spoken to you, as well as to the Chair of Scrutiny about our concerns prior to the Report being approved by the Executive in September, and we have also been in contact with an LGA Mentor. We have taken on board the advice that was kindly proffered and have sought to act at all times in accordance with that advice.
For the record, we would confirm that neither of us knew Mrs Connery before we were elected to the Isle of Wight Council, as Mrs Connery made clear at Full Council on 17th September, and neither of us knew of the Embankment issue prior to our election.
Rush Close is a reasonably sized housing development and unsurprisingly we both know many of the residents as we have both lived in Shanklin for many years. I (Richard priest) played football with one of the neighbours of Mrs Connery 25 years ago, and I (Jon Gilbey) have served some of the neighbours in my restaurant. Children of many of the residents also attend the youth centre that we serve as co-leaders, and we have both attended events or functions also attended by residents of Rush Close.
The above acquaintanceship with the development in question and some of its local residents do nothing to contradict our assertion that we do not have any pecuniary or financial interest in the matters that have been under consideration, and we do not believe that either of us have a close association with any of the residents (as would be relevant to section 11 of the Code of Conduct).
We would be grateful to you for your advice and comment on the above matters so that a constructive way forward can now be found which restores the integrity of the Council and its decision making process which we contend risk being brought into disrepute by some of the public statements that have been made by members of the Executive.
We look forward to your response and thank you in advance for your advice.
With kind regards and all good wishes. Richard and Jon
Image: Otis Historical Archives under CC BY 2.0
