On 24 Feb 2010 at 1:28pm LTR wrote:
Does anyone know if LDC should be posting complaint reports about Councillors online? It seems a bit inappropriate to me, both to the complainant, and the Councillor who is being complained about. In light of all this National Bullying Hotline controversy, it is becoming apparent to me how some people just haven't got a clue.
On 24 Feb 2010 at 2:44pm sashimi wrote:
LTR, can you point me in the direction of this complaint report. There is an upcoming meeting of the Standards Committee to deal with a complaint against 3 Peacehaven Town Councillors, but apart from naming them, there are no details of the complaint other than the faxct that the investigating officer seems to be suggesting there is no case to answer. The case papers are confidential. Is that the one you are referring to?
On 24 Feb 2010 at 4:49pm Dave wrote:
The Standards Board for England publishes them all when they've investigated.
On 24 Feb 2010 at 11:52pm LTR wrote:
Hello. No these are not current, so it may be that aspects of them could be published. One relates to a Councillor in Rodmell, from 2009, the other (can't remember the date off hand) reltes to one in Ringmer. What disturbs me is that they reveal the name of the complainant, and the other eveals the complainants home address, that of a witness, and all the original douments that were discussed. Surely complaints should be confidential? I know I wouldn't complain if my home address was going to end up on the web with the embarrassing details of that complaint.
Dave, yes, Standards Board used to publish them (maybe deal with some very serious referrals?), but its all gone in-house nowadays, so LDC consider complaints about the Standards of their own Councillors. that certainly doesn't inspire confidence in me.
On 25 Feb 2010 at 10:04am Dave Hedgehog wrote:
I have no confidence in you either LTR!
On 25 Feb 2010 at 10:47am sashimi wrote:
LTR, the Standards Committee proceedings appear to be a little like those of a court. A complaint against a councillor can result in him or her being suspended or censured. If you accuse someone in court, your name and address are recorded in public proceedings, except in very rare circumstances. If you comment on a planning application, your objection with your name and address are placed on record. I read the Ringmer case and it seems that at the end of an investigation, the officer's findings are published in detail. That's the downside of transparency and freedom of information.
On 25 Feb 2010 at 10:53am Prick Stein wrote:
Why is that a downside of transparency. Surely if you believe in what you say and have the power to comment or accuse another then you shouldn't have any problems with having your details recorded in this way. Obviously in this forum none of us believe in what we say and we all hide behind pseudonyms!
On 25 Feb 2010 at 11:26am sashimi wrote:
On 27 Feb 2010 at 3:20pm LTR wrote:
Yes, the Ringmer one is very embarrassing for all concerned. I sort of agree with you, but also do not. Complaints are not the same as court porceedings, and information given should remain confidential, especially if the complaint reveals personal information. SrStandards bords reports were only published at a certain stage, and not with acopies of all the original handwritten corresponcence. Other complaint reports reveal the complainant only by name/stand in name, not their full address, handwriting and signature, which is currently on the web. Surely publishing someones home addrfess and signature, with copies of their home correspondence isn't right? I raise this because these reports are marked 'confidential". Also a Councillor accepts a certain amount of lost privacy when elected to public office, a member of the public does not.
On 1 Mar 2010 at 11:51am EH? wrote:
Home address and signature! Are these people mad.?