Liberals Attack Standards Borad, councillors treated worse than criminals

Cllr Steve Radford
President of The Liberal Party
41 Sutton Street Tuebrook
Liverpool L13 7EG
0151 259 5935
07920090322

To William Tandoh
Local Democracy Directorate
Department for communities and Local Government
Elland House
Bressenden House
London
SW1E 5DU

Dear Sir

On behalf of the Liberal Party we would wish to make the following
comments in the public domain concerning these fundamental questions over the
rights and responsibilities of councillors.

We believe the whole Standards Board approach is deeply flawed , it is
in our view seeing the need to tie up councillors in regulations, almost
assuming them to be guilty and tried by an elitist body of fellow
councillors with vested interests in the outcome.

The different "regulatory" bodies are taking the place of municipal
democracy. It is the task of an opposition to expose questionable
standards and behaviour and to take its case to the hustings.

Similarly the recent grading of Councils by the Audit Commission
suggests that municipalities are unaccountable corporate bodies that need to be
assessed by by a government appointed regulatory body. Nonsense. In a
democracy it is a key role of opposition to examine, assess, judge and
then to hold the governing administration to account in the ballot box

It is deplorable that as more money is poured into Councillors' allowances
and into Group research and servicing, so do the powers of local
government decline and the political ability to hold the executive to account is
diminished.

In contrast the Board does not give any meaningful regulation to
control officers who act unethically , undermine councillors, act with personal
and political bias, obstruct legitimate information being provided to
elected councillors, in particular to opposition councillors

Nowhere is their a real defense of a councilors freedom to speak as
community advocates and challenge the abuse of public powers or funds, on behalf of the people
who have elected them
It is our view that the people who elect councillors who should judge
their behavior in the ballot box, unless a councillor is subject to criminal
legal action.

In particular the interpretation that prior comment by councillors on
issues, for example in election literature or other councils
disqualifies them from decision making is an unjustified limitation of
the powers and duties of a councillor and undermines the democratic
process  by limiting the  ability of candidates and councillors  to put a view
on planning in the public domain during the electoral process

If councillors are have to have their rights taken, ie excluded or
suspended from office, away then they should be
tied by a group of electors not by politicians who all too often may be
at a personal or political advantage to extinguish political rivals

The proposals for the concept of local investigation is even more prone
to  personal and political bias by officers and councillors. Without doubt we have
had several instances of senior officers colluding with members of the
ruling party to undermine the  constitutional rights of opposition members.

The vague concept of not showing respect  has been used and abused to
prevent opposition councillors airing legitimate grievances and challenging
abuse of powers.

In respect of disclosure again the code gives no expression for the
right of councillors to share legitimate information in the public domain.

We are appalled that the paper declares confidential information as being
disclosed for political gain as something to be suppressed.
The difference between political gain and public interest is highly
subjective

We believe there should only be a restriction on information exempt
from public domain where there are financial interests or personal privacy
of individuals potentially compromised. The public interest must be judged
on the whole not just in the cases of a matter of health and safety,
environment or legal obligations.

In respect of criminal behavior. We do not believe a councillor should
be subject to discipline for behavior that is considered criminal when
there has been no criminal conviction

We believe that the code should not apply whatsoever to the private
life of an individual unless the acton has a direct and meaningful link to
their  work as a councillor. Councillors do not have the benefit of a full time
salaror job security there is no reason why their private lives should be
under scrutiny or subject to frivolous or malicious investigation or
character assasination

Lastly we would point out the common criminal is treated better than
the current standards board procedures. The victim of allegations should
be informed when allegations are made and have the right to a trial by jury, with the right of legal support, the right to examine all the evidence and call their own witnesses, all these basic
procedural balances have been absent in the procedures operated by the
standards board to date

Councillor Steve Radford
President of The Liberal Party