Recommendations made following Cllr Jenkins hearing (From Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WGS NEWS to 80360, or email
us
Recommendations made following Cllr Jenkins hearing
5:00pm Wednesday 25th January 2012 in News By Ian Craig
A NUMBER of recommendations have been made to Cotswold District Council to avoid a repeat of the circumstances which led to least week’s Standards Committee hearing.
Last week’s four-day hearing into complaints made about Councillor Esmond Jenkins’ behaviour found that he had breached the council’s code of conduct through a number of his actions.
Following its decision, the four-person committee chaired by former Metropolitan Police commissioner Martin Jauch made four recommendations to CDC.
It was recommended that the council clarify the roles and responsibilities of councillors and officers within the council, and ensure that any breaches of the code of conduct can be identified and dealt with early.
As part of this, the committee also recommended that training should be arranged for both councillors and officers in the council’s protocol.
It was also recommended that it is ensured that all newly-elected councillors and newly-appointed members receive all necessary training, and that planning issues which are likely to have a degree of local importance are identified and discussed informally within the planning department before coming before the council.
The committee also recommended that any decisions taken under section 33 of the Localism Act, which allows councillors to apply to be able to participate in decisions which they have declared an interest in, should include consultation with the councillor in question.
Finally, the committee recommended that any outstanding actions from the council’s ‘action plan’ approved in July last year are dealt with as soon as possible.
The full report and recommendations can be viewed at the link below.
Comments(23)
Council Taxpayer
says...
10:19pm Wed 25 Jan 12
He was subjected to a malicious campaign to discredit him and have him thrown off the council after a property developer issued instructions to CDC to rein him in.
If the conspiracy had succeeded, he would have been disqualified from office for up to six months - yes, the Standards committee did have that power but they threw out the majority of the charges and decided not to use it.
Fortunately, the devious little plot failed as you can read in today's Private Eye.
We now need to know how much of our money CDC threw at this conspiracy to gag an elected representative.
They tried to shoot the messenger, missed the target and are now trying to blame him for the cost of the ammunition.
How utterly pathetic.
I am finally on Twitter and will be updating regularly with CDC news and comments. Follow me on @CouncilTaxpayer
Crispin Mount
says...
9:41am Thu 26 Jan 12
A part-time CEO at Trinity Road is clearly not the answer.
Follow me on Twitter @CrispinMount
Cirenres
says...
11:50am Thu 26 Jan 12
It seems CDC constructed a complaints case and employed a lawyer at £5,000 (our money) a day to win 5 out of 32 alleged breaches. Why?
Cllr Jenkins being asked to apologise to Nigel Adams, who handled himself with dignity and maturity but made no complaint against him, looks like the clown act at this circus.
The obvious question now is to the motivation for, and cost of (again our money), this "hearing" and who authorised that it should go ahead???
Maybe CDC will answer these questions; but suggest you don't hold your breath waiting!!!
Cirenres
says...
11:50am Thu 26 Jan 12
It seems CDC constructed a complaints case and employed a lawyer at £5,000 (our money) a day to win 5 out of 32 alleged breaches. Why?
Cllr Jenkins being asked to apologise to Nigel Adams, who handled himself with dignity and maturity but made no complaint against him, looks like the clown act at this circus.
The obvious question now is to the motivation for, and cost of (again our money), this "hearing" and who authorised that it should go ahead???
Maybe CDC will answer these questions; but suggest you don't hold your breath waiting!!!
Cirenres
says...
11:50am Thu 26 Jan 12
It seems CDC constructed a complaints case and employed a lawyer at £5,000 (our money) a day to win 5 out of 32 alleged breaches. Why?
Cllr Jenkins being asked to apologise to Nigel Adams, who handled himself with dignity and maturity but made no complaint against him, looks like the clown act at this circus.
The obvious question now is to the motivation for, and cost of (again our money), this "hearing" and who authorised that it should go ahead???
Maybe CDC will answer these questions; but suggest you don't hold your breath waiting!!!
Cirenres
says...
12:01pm Thu 26 Jan 12
ciren59
says...
6:29pm Thu 26 Jan 12
If you'd actually read the comment properly my point is nothing to do with Watermark and is, in fact, totally apolitical (apart from the final jovial comment about the Conservatives, granted). The complaints (upheld) that I refer to are those relating to Cllr Jenkins' unprofessional behaviour towards officers at CDC and bringing the Council into disrepute. Otherwise why would he have been required to write a letter of apology and undergo training in the Council's code of conduct?
There is no place for his sort of playground behaviour in the working environment, especially so given his position as an elected member, and for that he has been rightly censured. I would applaud ANY member of ANY party who exposes ANY form of corruption. However, there are ways and means of acheiving that without the insulting, unprofessional and frankly childish behaviour displayed by Cllr Jenkins.
Unfortunately I also suspect that, like yourselves, Cllr Jenkins has fallen foul of a non-existent conspiracy theory relating to planning officers and the Watermark. Perhaps you all should watch a little less American TV?
I fear that he is rather deluded as well as being unable to interact with people in a civilised manner. Not particularly useful traits in a politician nor indeed any human being.
Thanks but I'd rather not follow a deluded conspiracy theorist on Twitter or any other media thanks.
Council Taxpayer
says...
8:46am Fri 27 Jan 12
All I can say is that, if Cllr Jenkins could spot fraud where Gloucestershire Constabulary could see none and a mountain of waste which CDC and Environment Agency officers were blind to, then we need more "deluded lunatics" on the council.
It is true that the Tory members are generally, but not always, meek - remember how the Leader, Lynden Stowe and ex-councillor Chris Roberts described Lib Dems as "morons."
But do we really went a compliant flock that occasionally bleats "Baa!" to order or independently minded representatives prepared to speak the unvarnished truth and stand up to powerful vested interests that have an astonishing degree of influence at Trinity Road?
The power base in Cotswold District is shared between a group of powerful companies, including the mineral lobby and holiday home developers, the Cotswold Media dominated cabinet which has undisclosed (at least publicly) business links with those companies and a cabal of local government officers that sometimes reaches some very dubious decisions.
Where does the local taxpayer feature in all this - nowhere!
The words of Mike Stewart, Chairman of South Cerney Parish Council will echo around the council chamber until action is taken to hand power back to the people - "We have been shafted."
Pentheus
says...
12:38pm Fri 27 Jan 12
His first recommendation "that the council clarify the roles and responsibilities of councillors and officers within the council " is a pretty damning inditement of the mess at CDC. What is Neudegg doing all day ?? and the second recommendation that "all new Councillors will require training" is a statement of the absolute obvious ..
Time for a petition folks ...The man at the top has to take the responsibility and go !!!!
Pentheus
says...
12:41pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Pentheus
says...
12:41pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Esmond Jenkins
says...
12:41pm Fri 27 Jan 12
For rather than the anticipated public humbling of their most fervant critic, it just didn't go to plan, and as usual their scheming back-fired, another almighty disaster for their local amateurish "spin meisters"?
Rather than doing me damage, I and the local community have come out of this stronger and more galvanised than before. With many local "conservatives" now feeling deeply disenfranchised by the conduct of some in the party they thought represented them.
Is this the painful reality of localism? Some Councillors will no doubt need re-training, to be more representative, more considerate and a little more forthright?
Once I have undergone my training on the CDC code of counduct, who knows ? I might be in demand to run a "councillor self-help group" to re-train some of my colleagues on representation skills for the more diplomatically challenged"
Unpaid of course!!
Esmond
Council Taxpayer
says...
5:10pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Funnily enough I am encountering a growing number of Conservative friends and acquaintances no longer willing to associate themselves with the brand of Toryism peddled by the Cotswold Media mob.
How long before we witness a palace coup? Surely that will have to come before next year's County Council elections?
Susie Clark
says...
5:20pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Despite the outpourings of Council Taxpayer i.e the Chairman of the local LIb Dems , this was not a political plot engineered by the Conservatives , but a legimate action brought about by exasperated officers at the end of their tether having been subjected to verbal abuse for months by a councillor seemingly unable to express himself in any other way .
To think that the whole action was as a result of some sort of mafia within CDC is just pure fantasy ,and, as Ciren 59 says, propounding a conspiracy theory ranked alongside UFO's and JFK's death - this is Cirencester, not Dallas !
And please don't insult Cotswolds residents any further by bringing up Private Eye as some sort of media ombudsman - we all know who feeds Private Eye with their information - e-mailed straight from Lib Dem councillors, it seems.
Olly Cromwell
says...
7:04pm Fri 27 Jan 12
As Medusa Susie plugs Private Eye (again) perhaps she'll take on board the message contained in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
Council Taxpayer
says...
11:22pm Fri 27 Jan 12
It details how Paul Foot first broke the Poulson scandal story in Private Eye in 1970 but it took two more years and the resignation of the home secretary before property developer John Poulson was jailed for fraud and corruption along with several councillors and officials from local authorities across the north of England.
Susie may care to ponder why Private Eye has been sniffing around the Cotswold Water Park scandal for more than 18 months with 27 mentions of CDC alone.
With a readership of around 200,000 it is the country's top selling current affairs magazine and, as such, many informed observers consider that Rotten Boroughs probably does have more clout than the Local Authority Ombudsman.
Maybe Susie should really be asking why the Ombudsman suddenly dropped her investigation into Waterparkgate shortly after a Gloucestershire police officer made a trip to York to visit her office?
Just give it time Susie - it will all become clear before much longer.
Council Taxpayer
says...
11:41pm Fri 27 Jan 12
I signed up for Twitter a couple of days ago and a colleague of Mike has already corrected me on that medium. Ah! the wonders of modern communications.
ciren59
says...
9:26am Sat 28 Jan 12
As Susie mentions above the Standards Committee was instigated by CDC officers exasperated by Cllr Jenkins' rude and unreasonable behaviour making accusations of corruption that simply could not be substantiated.
If the corruption were real then Cllr Jenkins should take his "evidence" to the police agaian and then see what the courts make if it. Hopefully he would then be locked up for wasting police (and taxpayers) time and money.
I strongly suspect that Cllr Jenkins hasn't done this because the "evidence" is all in is febrile imagination.
The man is a total liability.
dopey1
says...
4:14pm Sat 28 Jan 12
You may be surprised to know that both Gloucestershire Constabulary and The City of London Police are presently investigating the goings on in the Water Park. The Gloucestershire Constabulary are particularly occupied examining the actions of the force in their earlier inquiry.
Professor Graham Garbutt has also carried out an inquiry on behalf of Gloucestershire County Council.
None of these people have febrile imaginations but I am informed that they are very, very busy!
Mind your fingers when the door slams!
Pentheus
says...
4:36pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Nothing , plain simple nothing!
ciren59
says...
7:10pm Sat 28 Jan 12
I am of course referring to the accusations of corruption, masonism etc at CDC - none of which dear cllr Jenkins has a shred of evidence for.
He may well have brought to light the Waterpark corruption issue for which I would applaud him along with anyone else. However, that does not give him carte blanche to spew accusations at people who are in a position that makes it difficult to defend themselves other than trhough very official channels. This arises because of the unusual relationship between councillors and council officers.
Cllr Jenkins may have done good work in the past but has now overstepped the mark both of decency to fellow human beings and possible legality.
I hope that the statements he has falsely made about specific council officers will be pursued legally. I suspect that they will not because the officers concerned are decent people who would just like to get on with their jobs.
Council Taxpayer
says...
10:05pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Cllr Jenkins was right then and, having seen some but not all of the damning documentary evidence, I believe he is going to be proved right again.
So why don't you just wait and see what happens or make it your business to look into the mounting evidence as many others have. As the Beatles once sang: "It won't be long now."
ciren59 says...
8:47pm Wed 25 Jan 12
Someone holding an elected office should really know better. It is unfortunate that the powers of the Standards Committee do not extend to removal from office.
Even the Tories can manage to be polite to officers of the council.