To consider a report including information on an appeal against a decision taken by the Monitoring Officer on a complaint received about a councillor.  (Report No:124)

The Committee received the report of the Monitoring Officer setting out the details of the complaint received from Mrs Kate Leach against Councillor Daniel Anderson and the subsequent appeal from Mrs Leach.  (Report No: 124). 

1.               The former interim Monitoring Officer presented her report to the Committee highlighting the following:

·       The original complaint had been received by Asmat Hussain, the former Monitoring Officer, within the required 3 months. 

·       Asmat Hussain had asked Jill Bayley, principal lawyer, to carry out an internal investigation into the original complaint, on her behalf. She had also consulted Sarah Jewell as Independent Person. 

·       Having reviewed the investigation report, Jayne Middleton Albooye had agreed to uphold the recommendations made, that Councillor Anderson had not been in breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct. 

·       The “to follow” documents included comments from the complainant in support of her appeal. 

2.               Jill Bayley highlighted the following from her independent investigation report: 

·       Two sets of interviews had been carried out.  The first with Councillor Anderson, Mr George Dunnion and Mrs Kate Leach and the second with Stephen Genus, the caretaker at Garfield School and David Taylor, Head of Traffic and Transportation at Enfield Council.  David Taylor who had had responsibility for the disputed decision.

·       Councillor Anderson had been asked to apologise at an early stage in the investigation but had not consented to do so. 

·       In relation to the first allegation on lack of accountability, she had had at first had some concern that Councillor Anderson had not accepted that he had to be accountable, stating at one point “I don’t have to be accountable”.  This had been queried by Jayne Middleton Albooye in a later interview and Jill Bayley had subsequently felt that Councillor Anderson had misunderstood her questioning and that he did fully accept accountability for the decision he had taken in his role as a Cabinet Member, but was not accountable to Mrs Leach, as a ward councillor, as he was not her ward councillor.  Jill Bayley had concluded that Councillor Anderson had felt that he had been following correct procedures. 

·       In relation to the second allegation on the lack of openness, the investigation had revealed that there had been several conversations between officers and Councillor Anderson, between officers and Mrs Leach, a meeting with ward councillors and that information on the decision and the reasons behind it had been provided to residents.  Although Councillor Anderson may not have responded in the most appropriate manner, Jill Bayley concluded that there had been not a deliberate attempt to avoid openness. 

·       In relation to the third allegation on lack of respect and courtesy it had been clear that the incident had been heated and had escalated quickly, but Jill Bayley concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Councillor Anderson had acted in a way which showed a lack of respect.  There had also been evidence that he had tried to calm things down. 

·       In relation to the fourth allegation of bullying, Jill Bayley concluded that there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 401