Councillors who are dishonest

Councillors who are dishonest

Written for the Blog by a Preston resident.

I find it appalling that our elected officials are prepared to commit acts of abuse and then happily lie to cover their tracks, I find it equally disturbing that other councillors are happy to support them by refusing to give an account of the incident.

There were two very clear and separate accounts of the incident, statements from senior councillors who are new to their positions gave their account which were honest in their recollections. We then have the second group of statements that are made by the longer serving members, the two sets of statements are total opposites to each other.

It is not possible for both sets to be accurate there can only be one set that is accurate and one set that is fictitious, also the separating line is very clearly between newer councillors and longer serving councillors, the chances of that by accident is extremely small.

The final point is that the inaccurate statements have simply swapped over the names of the two people involved to make the guilty party entirely innocent.

As things go, all in all an extremely clumsy and ill thought through attempt at deception but it did work for them but all parties involved know they are lying but are not prepared to address it.

I have listed my complaint to the Monitoring Officer at East Riding Council so anyone interested can draw his or her own conclusions as to the truth.

I readily accept the complaint is long because I tried to approach it from different angles hoping that one would gel with the reader, not to be unfortunately.

I have been referred to as Mr. Negative or Mr. Anonymous on a certain Face book Group, I wonder if the person saying that would accept such untruths if they were about him? Is he suggesting I have no right to defend myself against such actions by councillors?

The Monitoring Officer                                                                                   

East Riding of Yorkshire Council                                                                       

County Hall                                                                                               

Beverley                                                                                               

HU17 9BA

                                                                                                            27/09/12

Dear Sirs

Complaint against Councillors ****, *******, ******* and *******, Preston Parish Council.

On 25/09/12 the Standards Committee considered a case relating to Councillor *****  **** of Preston Parish Council (SCASC/181/****/Preston), the committee’s decision was to take no further action.

The witness statements submitted by the above councillors heavily influenced that decision. The statements given by those councillors were false and intentionally meant to deceive and mislead the Standards Committee.

By knowingly submitting untruthful and misleading witness statements of this kind it could reasonably be regarded as bringing their Authority into disrepute.

The incident was quite momentous and should be well recollected by witnesses, particularly because it was the first meeting of the new council following the May 2011 local elections and a number of new councillors were taking their seats, that in itself would imprint on councillors memories as they would at the time have had a heightened sense of awareness as it was their inaugural meeting.

I do not refer to the statements my partner and I made to the Standards Committee I intend to restrict my case to councillors. Though, should you consider them appropriate I am sure they can be retrieved from the previous case, if not we will be happy to forward them to you on request.

1.     How I know the statements are false,

I was the target of Councillor ***** attack on the date in question and I know the statements in question bear absolutely no resemblance to the truth, the statements are so far from the facts of the matter they cannot be accidental, minor faults in memory or diminished recollection due to the passage of time. The statements are contrived and fabricated by the above councillors with the sole purpose of misleading the Standards Committee.

2.     Examples of false statements reproduced from the Investigating Officers final report,           

2.1.‘A recollection of Councillor **** responding to aggressive comments from Mr. *****. 

At no time did I make any comment towards Cllr. **** I was at the time responding to a statement by the then Chairman, Cllr. ******** and, I was directing that reply to the Chair in a reasonable tone of voice when Cllr. **** suddenly turned in his chair and interjected with his outburst. The only time I had any verbal interaction with Cllr. **** was when forced to defend myself during his attack.

As I was speaking at the time in a hushed room all councillors would have been able to hear what I was saying, yet apart from the above group of councillors no other witness mentions my making comments of any kind towards Cllr. ****.

2.2.‘A recollection that Cllr. **** had his back to Mr. ***** and Mr. ***** made a derogatory comment which he has done over a period of time.’

Partly answered in 2.1 above, I normally make a point of not speaking during council meetings specifically to avoid such accusations, on the very rare occasion I do contribute to ‘Public Participation’ I have never spoken to Cllr **** directly I will normally direct my comments to the Chair, as standard protocol requires at such meetings. This is the second of the councillors to say I made some kind of comment towards Cllr. ****.

2.3.‘Cllr. **** comes across as a forceful character but not his true nature, Mr. *****             made a statement and Mr. **** replied but no impression of aggression and no indication of this from his body language, he did not turn to face Mr. ***** and spoke to him over his shoulder’.

Again there is an implication of my making comments towards Cllr. **** and that Cllr. **** displayed no signs of aggression. From the Investigating Officers comments in her draft report I believe this to be a statement from Cllr. *******. I find this account difficult to comprehend because of her location during the outburst (5.8 below), this statement is the opposite of a truthful account of the incident. Cllr. ***** ‘true nature’ with regard to his temper is well known within council and within our local community.

2.4.Cllr. ***** own statement according to the Investigating Officers report, (5.7 in her report) and corroborated by Cllr. *******, states that he ‘did not turn around to face him at all’.

This very emphatic statement from Cllr. ***** own lips may be the keystone to this complaint. It would appear to be the key lie that all others radiate from. If this lie can be proven all others will naturally follow. I intend to refer to this later in this complaint (3.9 below).

This lie exposes the central position of Cllr. **** in this conspiracy to mislead, other councillors are not acting in isolation they are operating in tandem orchestrated by Cllr. **** and *******.

It is also becoming a common thread in the offending Cllr. Statements, very similar to Cllr. *******, these are the two people I would expect to know exactly what transpired during that exchange but, they appear to be unable to remember anything of the incident that’s accurate.

The councillors mentioned in this complaint appear to precisely corroborate each other’s statements whilst at the same time being alien to all other witness statements.

3      General Comments.

3.1      Three of these councillors have now referred to my making comments of one kind or another towards Cllr. ****. No other witness has mentioned that event and I would have thought such a strong element if it existed would have been a key feature in witness statements.

3.2      At the time of the incident I was replying to the Chairman in a hushed room so all councillors would have heard what I was saying (2.1 above). If I had made any derogatory or aggressive remarks to Cllr. **** I’m sure that would be the first recollection of all witnesses.

3.3      I believe we now have all four of the offending statements (including Cllr. **** and *******) who clearly state Cllr. **** had his back to me and only spoke to me over his shoulder, he didn’t turn to face me at all and that I was aggressive and abusive. I must allegedly have been speaking to the back of Cllr. ***** head rather loudly. I’m sure any reasonable person would agree that is such a strange thing for someone to do other witnesses would have easily remembered it and would therefore have mentioned it, they haven’t mentioned it because it did not happen.

3.4      Cllr. ***** colleagues are suggesting he stayed calm during my alleged aggressive and derogatory comments to the back of his head and calmly retorted over his shoulder, this scenario has no credibility.

3.5      We now have a number of elements that are common in and restricted to the offending councillors statements, it is simply not possible for that to be accidental, it is only possible for that level of duplication to have been engineered. Especially as no other witnesses recall any of those events, once again that means those councillors mentioned in this complaint must have conspired with the intention to lie and mislead the Standards Committee.

3.6      The general recollection from the honest statements such as Cllr. ******* who clearly states there was a heated exchange between Cllr. **** and myself, see (5.5 below) Cllr. **** is therefore suggesting we must have had that heated exchange whilst facing in opposite directions, no reasonable person would accept that statement, it simply must be untruthful, it doesn’t make any sense. Two people having a heated exchange of words would not chose to face opposite directions this would go against all human defensive instinct. This can only be a contrived fabrication between the offending councillors.     

3.7      The councillors listed in this complaint have an axe to grind with me, some may say justifiably others may say unjustifiably. As I have approached these councillors on a number of occasions to try to resolve the issues that separate us but with no reciprocation, I would suggest unjustifiably.

3.8      Their actions would in fact indicate they are pursuing a vendetta against me and will go to any lengths to prove their point. Whatever the relationship between these councillors and I, there can be no possible justification for the action these councillors have taken on this occasion.

3.9      I suffer with a profound deafness over a range of frequencies, which particularly affects my       ability to hear and understand speech, I need under normal circumstances to wear two hearing       aids, even in quiet environments. Over the years I have developed the skill to use visual clues such as lip reading in my every day conversations, albeit, I’m sure, in a rudimentary fashion.

On the day in question one of my hearing aids was faulty and unusable causing me to almost not attend the meeting, I decided to attend in the hope that one hearing aid would suffice.

If as Cllr. ****, ******, ******* and ******* would have you believe, Cllr. **** did not turn to face me and did not raise his voice I would not have known he had spoken, even if I had been able to detect that he had spoken I most certainly would not have known what he was saying or who he was saying it to and would therefore not have responded to him. From this position alone it is not possible for those Councillors statements to be honest or truthful accounts of the incident.

If the Standards Committee request an Audiogram of my hearing I will be pleased to forward a copy to you, I am able to forward audiograms from 2007 up to 2012. I am also happy to forward relevant information of the Audiologist who carried out the Audiograms so you will be in a position to confirm its authenticity independently. It will clearly show my hearing loss to be binaural ranging from low through to high frequencies, confirming that one hearing aid would not necessarily give me the binaural balance to hear speech clearly. Even if you were       facing me and I had the use of two hearing aids I would still have to rely on visual clues to some extent.
           
The only request I will make to the Standards Committee is, because the audiogram is a personal medical record I would require it to remain confidential to the Standards Committee.

Cllr. ***** emphatic statement that he, ‘did not turn around to face him at all’ and Cllr. ******* statement that  ‘he did not turn to face Mr. ***** and spoke to him over his shoulder’ cannot possibly be a true account of the incident.     

4      Statement comparison, main elements.

4.1Group A. (Cllr. ********, ******* and *******)

a)‘A recollection of Councillor **** behaving in an aggressive manner towards a member of the public which went beyond the normal boundaries of behaviour one would expect in a meeting and of a councillor’.

b) ‘One recollection that Councillor **** had reacted sarcastically towards the complainant’.

c)‘A recollection That Councillor **** and Mr. ***** were both angry and had a heated exchange’.

These recollections are clearly individually generated and have a similar thread running through them and are identifiable to each other, they obviously all refer to the same incident.

4.2Group B. (Cllr. ****, *******, ******* and *******)

a)‘A recollection of Councillor **** responding to aggressive comments from Mr. *****.

All Group B. statements say similar but none of Group A. mention this.

b)‘Councillor **** did not turn to face Mr. *****.

All Group B. statements claim exactly the same, but none of Group A. mention this.

c)‘A recollection that Councillor **** had his back to Mr. ***** and Mr. ***** made a derogatory comment”

All Group B. statements refer to some sort of comment been made by me to Councillor ****. But none of Group A. mention this.

d)All of Group B. statements say or indicate that I was the aggressor.

None of Group A. mention this.

e)All Group B. say or infer Cllr. **** was not aggressive in any way.

None of Group A. mention this, they say the opposite.

f)All Group B. Statements indicate Cllr **** was the victim.
                       
None of Group A. mention this.

4.2Group A statements are produced by witnesses that are genuinely motiveless, they are in no danger of being adversely affected by any outcome, have no-one to protect and have therefore no reason to lie. If they wish to show some support but are not prepared to lie they simply abstain. The problem is with Group B. statements where the person facing the complaint has now become aware that there may be consequences to his actions, he is faced with two main options.

a)Be honest, admit to the action, show a little contrition, mitigate with a chosen defence possibly that of provocation, a good starting point would be to apologise for the act and from there, rely on your defence. The action was easily defendable and any possible consequences could have been easily minimized with no lasting effects.

b)Be prepared to lie, recruit witnesses who are prepared to perjure themselves (Councillors take a legal oath of office promising to be honest) on your behalf and risk their own reputations. Agree a story that you think will convince or fool your opponents and hope for the best. There is of             course the very real danger of making the situation and penalty much worse, you would have to be prepared to involve innocent people and sacrifice their reputations and good name for your benefit.

4.3Whichever method you might wish to employ in analyzing the problem, all roads lead back to Group B all you need to do is identify the motives.

4.4All of the statements from Group B. are opposite to the reality of the event and do not connect by any natural or mutual thread to the honest statements made by Group A. 

4.5Group B. statements are all virtually identical to each other, they all cover the same ground, they all refer to what they feel are the same incriminating elements, they all change those same incriminating elements, they all present Cllr. **** as the aggrieved party, they all paint myself as the aggressor, they all have the same preciseness.

4.6It appears that 100% of truthful statements recall some elements that actually happened during the incident and contain no elements that didn’t happen, whilst 100% of the dishonest statements recall no elements that actually happened but contain 100% of elements that didn’t happen. Combined with the fact that the two sets of statements differ by 100% with no mutual recollections connecting them there can only be one set that’s right and one set that’s wrong. The differences are conclusive the need must be to identify the set that is wrong.

5      Conclusions.

5.1To statistically have this level of alignment to each others statements and yet be so precisely misaligned with all other witness statements by chance from individually generated statements is miniscule to zero. I would suggest it is only possible if the councillors in question have sat down and discussed what happened in very great detail and at length and further discussed in great detail and at length what action they can take to alter the possible outcome and mitigate the consequences. They would all have to agree a mutual format of wordings and take notes, then go off and prepare a statement in line with that agreement. That can be the only possible reason why they are all so similar.

5.2Although muted I believe the Council Chairman and Vice Chairman at the time, Cllr. ******** and ******** respectively gave an accurate account of the incident though they clearly felt uncomfortable in expanding their recollections more fully and possibly felt it a duty to respond due to their positions on the council. These two witnesses are not associated with me in any way, the only association you could possibly connect us by is that we reside in the same village, beyond that we do not know each other, we are not ‘friends’, we are not related to each other, we have no history of a fractious relationship, we have no known activities in common and we share absolutely no allegiances.

5.3These two witnesses are as close to independent in this matter as we are likely to get, though it could be argued that being fellow councillors with Cllr. **** and having worked alongside him for a number of months (at the time of statement) they could be expected to show a bias towards him and that would account for their muted recollections. Even so it has not affected their honesty and I therefore accept those statements.

5.4It must also be remembered that Cllr. ******** is, I believe, a sitting magistrate whose reputation I would imagine is extremely important to her and her occupation. To be intentionally inaccurate in her recollections to this incident would be an extremely dangerous course for her to take, so bearing this in mind and if I were the investigator and having analysed the statements I would have no option but to have total faith in her account.

5.5The statement from (at the time) Cllr. ************ is irreproachable and unimpeachable, Councillor ********* has a character to be proud of, she always displays the utmost integrity,             is sincere and utterly truthful. I do know ******** ********* as she is a close neighbour and therefore an acquaintance, though that would not affect her honesty or integrity in any way. Her character I suspect is easily checked out, simply ask almost anyone in the village of Preston who know her, the Preston Parish Church or anyone else for that matter and you will no longer question her account.

5.6I believe Ms. ********* statement refers to ‘the history of tensions between certain residents and the parish council’. As far as it goes it is an entirely accurate statement along with             ‘Councillor ***** and Mr. ***** were both angry and had a heated exchange’. There is a             common thread in the statements of the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Cllr. ********; there are no common threads that would connect the statements of Cllr. ****, *******, *******             and ******** to those of the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Cllr. *********.

5.7The reason for that is the statements subject to this complaint have no basis in truth or fact             and are totally fabricated, they can only have been arrived at by collusion between the offending Councillors.

5.8Councillor ********* is the councillor whom I consider to be more culpable due to her being seated next to Councillor ***** at the time and she had a prime position to observe the incident. She did in fact follow the incident very closely, she had turned to face both Councillor ***** and myself and intently followed the exchange as Cllr. **** made very loud and aggressive accusations towards me and as I in turn was forced to defend myself equally as loud. Cllr. ******** eventually calmed Cllr. ***** by physically turning him back towards the table saying, ‘its not worth it ****. It is impossible for this councillor to have given her statement not knowing it to be utterly false and fictitious.

5.9There appears to be a strong bond between Cllr. *****, ********, ******** and ********, and there is certainly a strong allegiance between them and it is therefore entirely reasonable to             expect them to defend each other, but to go to the lengths that they have in relation to this matter is unacceptable, there can be no place for this kind of behaviour in public office.

5.10For the councillors mentioned in this complaint to produce such a diametrically opposed account of the incident can only be a result of collusion and planning, unfortunately they have not thought to ‘weave in’ their story to the general fabric of the events of the incident and that shows them to be false and untruthful. These statements I am sure would also be unrecognizable to all other members of the council.

5.11Because of the equality of opinions in the case of SCASC/181/****/Preston, three witness statements suggesting my complaint was justified and three witness statements suggesting my complaint was not justified. The Standards Committee took a decision of ‘No further action’. Had the Investigating Officer gone the ‘extra mile’ in her investigation and taken the decision to interview all councillors in order to resolve the issues, or simply analyse the statements, I believe we would not be here today.

5.12The Councillors mentioned in this complaint had a major influence on the outcome of the case. All councillors covered by this complaint must be brought to account. If not this could lead to a significant reduction in confidence in Local Government.

5.13I believe this complaint has now shown Cllr. ***** emphatic statement in the Investigating Officers report that he ‘did not turn around to face him at all’ to be utterly untruthful and             therefore it naturally follows that the supporting statement of Cllr. ******* ‘he did not turn to face Mr. ***** and spoke to him over his shoulder’ must also be untrue as are their colleagues supporting statements.

5.14Because of the seating positions on the day, supplied to the Investigating Officer of the previous case I have a personal question mark over the culpability of Cllr. ******** and             ********* in so far as, these councillors were the furthest away from the incident and, their             accounts may have been unduly influenced by relying on information from Cllr. ***** and ********. These two councillors are the main orchestrators of this conspiracy to deceive and therefore are the ones who should bear the brunt of any possible sanction. I believe, in the interests of fairness Cllr. ********* and ********* should be given the opportunity to review their statements and amend them in order to avoid any possible stain on their character and good name.

5.15The public have a right to demand honest behaviour from their elected officials, when those officials fail that standard, particularly in such an intentional way they endanger public confidence by their dishonesty then the public have a right to expect severe but appropriate sanctions to be applied, people who are prepared to commit this level of dishonesty to an official investigation by the Standards Committee should be barred from public office.

I believe dishonesty in public office is possibly one of the most serious allegations that can be leveled against a Parish Councillor, second only to theft, because of their proximity to the electoral base. I do not believe this matter can be left unresolved due to its extremely serious nature and possible implications to the credibility of Preston Parish Council, East Riding Council and the possible disrepute it may bring upon Local Government in our general area.

Because of the seriousness of this matter I believe all Preston Parish Councillors should be interviewed individually at County Hall, Beverley and the truth be established. From the three honest statements it shows not all councillors are dishonest and I would therefore hope that by taking such action, the facts would emerge in a very clear and conclusive manner.

I did request the Investigating Officer involved with SCASC/181/****/Preston to request the recollections of Mr. ***** ***** on at least two occasions, he was sat on the same table as ***** and myself at the time of the incident and so had a ringside seat as it were. He was never approached, Mr. ***** has since become a  member of Preston Parish Council and I am sure he can be relied upon for an honest recollection of the events in question.

Yours sincerely

*** *****