This follows on from the 3rd blog on the case papers, here. To try and explain to the Standards Commissioner the context in which I was operating as a councillor I sent them on additional information about the way in which the council operated. This material is at these links but you might like to skip to the paragraphs below these 3 links and to the final two links on this blog today.
None of the above seems to have been of any interest to the Commissioner. I now know that they seem to take the view that context doesn’t matter. All that matters is the manner in which a councillor “interacts” with officers. That sounds as though it makes no difference what the officers says or does or doesn’t do; a councillor can’t do or say anything about it without risking breaching the code.
The Commissioner issued 2 reports, neither of which I am publishing unless someone asks for them. I am not publishing them because my responses to them say it all in my view. I took issue with the content of the first report and then they issued a 2nd one that still took the view I had breached the code of conduct.
I then issued a further rebuttal (pages 283 to 290) but I also gave them a personal statement (pages 297 to 305) that provided them with details of the way I had been treated as a councillor in my first year or so. My view was, and remains, that I was treated with utter disrespect by officers. That is why I felt I had to release some information that I had, till then, been unwilling to release. This is all contained in the following two documents.
None of the above made any difference, apparently, despite the jaw dropping manner in which officers had operated as set out in pages 297 to 305.