PAPER BB

20^th January 2006

Dear Mr Claxton,

As I am sure you are aware, there are a number of outstanding concerns that arose from the recent hearing of the Standards Committee, for which I need some clarification.

I understand that you will be discussing the outcome of the hearing at your next meeting on the 30^th January. You will recall from earlier correspondence from my colleague David Pugh, that on one of the points raised you suggested that we wait for the appeal process to deal with the issue. As neither that issue nor the other outstanding procedural matters were dealt with at the hearing I would be most grateful if you could consider the following (many of which will be familiar to you since they were included in the appeal papers):-

1. Legal representation

I arrived at the hearing to find that the ESO had instructed a practising lawyer to represent her at the case. Although I was informed by the Standards Committee that the ESO would be represented by Mr Sam Taggart, I was not told in advance that he was a lawyer. I was not legally represented at the hearing and was therefore technically at a disadvantage. I understand that it is accepted common practice in the legal field that if the opposing party is not legally represented (or has not been notified of their right to be so represented in light of the opposing side being such represented), proceedings should not continue. Having no legal representation was a severe disadvantage and certainly did not provide a level playing field.

2. Evidence under oath

The ESO’s witness was asked to give evidence under oath. However, the two witnesses that I called (a former Mayor of the Council and the Town Clerk) were not asked to give evidence under oath. This had the unfortunate effect of giving an impression that the evidence of witnesses from opposing sides did not carry the same weight. This disparity in procedure raised serious concerns that have not been subsequently addressed.

3. Report of evidence

Further to the point above, no mention of the evidence given by my two witnesses was included in the Standards Committee’s report. It was as if they did not exist. The evidence they gave fully backed my position but was completely ignored by the Standards Committee in their deliberations.

4. Provision of papers

One of the witnesses I called (Cllr Geoff Banks) was not sent any papers prior to the hearing and was therefore unaware of the details of the actual charges made against me. Again this raises concerns over procedure and the equal treatment of witnesses and their access to materials to enable them to make informed representations to the hearing.

5. Behaviour of committee members

One of the independent members of the Standards Committee had to be stopped twice by you, as Chairman of the Committee, from pursuing aggressive and irrelevant lines of questioning to my colleague and me, in contrast to a much more gracious approach towards other witnesses. My concern is that this approach gave an impression of trying to undermine the credibility of my case and raises further questions as to whether this member of the Standards Committee was able to pursue an even-handed approach in reaching a judgement.

6. Procedure at the hearing

The “Procedure at the Hearing” document which the Standards Committee followed did not include any provision for the member (me) to ask questions of the member’s (my) witnesses. Clearly, the purpose of them being called was for me to ask them for their views and then for the Board and for the ESO’s representative to question them. You will recall that an amendment to the procedure had to be made partway through the hearing. This raised questions over whether the Standards Committee was adequately prepared in the full procedure which needed to be undertaken, as they had to take such an ad hoc approach to what was supposed to be a clearly structured process. This amendment only came about because I highlighted the need for it.

7. Political proportionality

There was a clear imbalance in political proportionality on the Standards Committee Board. The two members from the IW Council were both from a group in opposition to the group in the same authority, of which I am a member. The Standards Board’s own guidance document (“Standards Committee Determinations – guidance for monitoring officers and Standards Committees – July 2003”) states “when it is determining a case, the Standards Committee should be recognised as truly fair and politically unbiased so that members of the public and members of the authority have confidence in its procedures and findings”.

8. Penalty

I am concerned at the interpretation of a procedure that required me to serve the penalty imposed by the Standards Committee even though the Committee was aware that I was lodging an appeal against the judgement that it had reached. I believe there is a serious issue of infringement of my human rights in having been asked to serve the suspension, in spite of the knowledge that an appeal was pending and when that appeal subsequently cleared me completely of the original charges. I would ask the Standards Committee to consider in what way they plan to compensate me for this infringement

9. Costs

Notwithstanding the damage to my personal reputation that was caused by the flawed judgement of the Standards Committee, I have incurred considerable expense in employing solicitors and legal advisors in this case. I would ask the Standards Committee to look into the question of reimbursing the costs that I have incurred. I will be happy to provide the necessary receipts to validate those costs.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Alan Wells