Thursday 15 March 2012

Lifting the veil on the Town Hall

The Standards for England  (SfE) report on allegations made against councillor Brian Ransley lifts the veil on life within the town hall in Tunbridge Wells. What a sad and disquieting spectacle is revealed.

The starting point has to be that councillor Ransley did not fail to comply with the code of conduct in respect of the eight allegations made against him and that he acted in honest belief and without malice.

See:  http://www2.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/pdf/Standards%20for%20England%20Investigation%20Report.pdf

However there is material in the report which is of concern and I shall be posting on this in the days ahead. Two examples to be going on with:

7.31 I acknowledge Mr Cummins concern that Councillor Ransley’s conduct failed to comply with the Council’s own protocol. I consider that the protocol requiring cabinet members to avoid interfering or attempting to interfere, with decisions that are excluded from the powers of cabinet, was adopted for a good reason. I consider that the kind of rhetoric employed by Councillor Ransley at the committee meeting was inappropriate, especially given his particular portfolio. I consider that for Councillor Ransley to suggest that committee members had a ‘duty’ to reject the application was wholly inappropriate. It is my view that Councillor Ransley’s conduct could be perceived by an objective observer as an attempt to use his position as Cabinet member to impose his own interpretation of planning policy on both planning officers and members of the planning committee. I note that this approach could expose the council to a real risk of a legal challenge, given that the development control function is excluded from the powers of the council’s executive.


9.50 I do not condone Councillor Ransley’s conduct. I note that during this investigation Councillor Ransley has strongly protested the unfairness of anyone giving uncorroborated evidence or expressing opinions that could suggest any misconduct by him, even when that evidence or opinion was given in confidence and can be tested against other evidence. At the same time Councillor Ransley appears absolutely unwilling to recognise the unfairness of his own behaviour when he circulated uncorroborated claims about Mr Benson and Mr MacDonald’s alleged misconduct to other people. Again I consider that a reasonable member of the public would think less of Councillor Ransley as an individual given such a lack of care for the reputation of other people when he is so concerned for his own reputation. I note that Councillor Ransley’s behaviour has undoubtedly damaged the trust that should exist between senior officers and senior members. However, in the light of my finding of fact concerning Councillor Ransley’s genuine if mistaken belief in the likely accuracy of Ms Marshall’s report, and in absence of cogent evidence of malicious intent, I do not consider that Councillor Ransley’s conduct was so serious as to be capable of reducing confidence in his ability to fulfil his role as a councillor. I do not consider that Councillor Ransley failed to comply with paragraph 5 of the code of conduct.

No comments:

Post a Comment