According to AI the Independent Person is: an impartial individual appointed by local government to provide advice on allegations of misconduct against elected members. The role of the Independent Person is to help ensure that the public can trust how the council handles allegations."
Each Council appoints one or more Independent Persons, and therein lies an immediate flaw in the system.
How does this work in practice? Here are two examples from Sandwell Council:
1. Select cronies as "Independent Persons"
Mr John Tew was personally involved at the highest level in secret negotiations involving the largely free transfer of a £70m iconic building - The Public in West Bromwich - to Sandwell College just after the taxpayer had built a brand-new £70m building for it. Despite his dealings in this massive multi-million pound scandal Labour appointed Tew as the Council's "Independent Person". [It has to be said though that the hapless local Tory MP's and Councillors - before most of them were consigned to the dustbin of history - backed this grotesque scam.]
2. Richard Phillips - a case study - Cllr Melia standards hearing & complaint
Background
Cllr Melia assaulted journalist, Julian Saunders, before a Council meeting:
Melia rushed straight to Sandwell's (then) highly controversial Monitoring Officer, Surjit Tour, for protection and a written apology was prepared to be sent to Saunders. It was never sent - presumably because Tour became aware that Saunders had made a Police complaint and this would have been an immediate admission of guilt. However, Tour ensured that a copy of the draft apology dated three days after the assault was included in the bundle of evidence to be put before the Ethical Standards Committee as if it HAD been sent.
It stands to reason that if Saunders had ever received the apology he would (a) immediately published it on the Sandwell Skidder blog, and (b) passed it to West Midlands Police who were already investigating the assault. Further, when Melia attended the Magistrates's Court to plead guilty, his solicitor set out a remarkable piece of fiction in mitigation, but did not mention the alleged "apology". Clearly any Solicitor worth their salt would have mentioned that Melia had rushed to send a written apology to his victim, but this was not the case here.
Melia was prosecuted for the assault and was duly convicted by Dudley Magistrates upon his guilty plea. Saunders also made a standards complaint against Melia.
Tour appointed the supposedly independent Miranda Carruthers-Watt to prepare a report. She interviewed Melia who falsely claimed to her that he had sent Saunders the written apology referred to above. Below the subscription we are taking the unusual step of setting out the correspondence on this subject between Saunders/Tour/Carruthers-Watt for the record, but suffice to say that - to Tour's immense satisfaction - Carruthers-Watt could not be bothered to seek documentary proof from Melia that he had sent the apology and/or amend her Report to show that she had asked for the evidence, but that Melia had failed to supply it. Again to Tour's satisfaction, she then decided Saunders was not needed to give evidence at the standards hearing. Tour duly blocked him from doing so. [For the sake of completeness Carruthers-Watt made a mealy-mouthed comment at the hearing that she "hadn't seen any evidence of the apology having been sent" but STILL failed to draw the obvious conclusion from this. In any event she had at least 19 days pre-hearing to clarify the position and amend her Report accordingly but chose, for whatever personal reason, not to do so.]
Saunders did have one small procedural victory in that he had Cllr Rizwan Jalil removed from sitting on the hearing panel as Jalil has been making threatening phone calls to him - including one at 10pm on a Saturday night.
The Hearing
The appointed panel was made up of three Labour Councillors, one Tory, a supposedly independent legal adviser, and Richard Phillips - the Independent Person. Two of the Labour Councillors were very close associates of Melia including the Chair, Cllr Keith Allcock. Allcock very aggressively prevented Saunders from giving any evidence at the hearing, and this decision was fully backed by Richard Phillips.
The hearing was in public in the Council chamber. Melia styles himself as a champion of the armed forces but was too cowardly to sit where he could be seen from the public gallery. Allcock - again backed by Phillips - allowed him to move and sit out of sight underneath the overhang of the public gallery.
When the issue of the apology came up Melia claimed that he had sent it and that if the Committee wanted him to sort through all his emails he could find it - even though he had not been able to find it in the months before the hearing. Allcock and the Committee, including the Tory Councillor and the Independent Person, Phillips, could not be bothered to wait for Melia to search his email account and simply carried on with the hearing.
Notwithstanding all of Monitoring Officer, Surjit Tour's, efforts Melia was unanimously found to be in breach of the Code of Conduct for Councillors. Hardly surprising given the video evidence above and Melia's guilty plea at the Magistrates' Court. Importantly, for the context of this piece, the Panel unanimously (i.e. including Phillips) found that Melia had shown no remorse whatsoever for the assault. The only logical inference from this is that the Panel - including Phillips - did NOT believe Melia sent the apology as he claimed (and which he could not find proof of doing). Indeed, as part of the sanctions the Panel recommended one was specifically that Melia send a written apology to Saunders - clearly totally unnecessary if the Panel - included Phillips - believed that he had already sent one.
[In a monumental "up-yours" to Saunders, Surjit Tour sent him "Melia's apology" - as ordered by the Panel for Melia to send - in the precise form Tour had slipped into the evidence bundle and bearing the same date!]
The Second Standards Complaint
Saunders then made a second standards complaint on the basis that Melia had again not complied with the Code of Counduct by, inter alia, failing to act with honesty and integrity; failing to act with reasonable care and diligence; bringing the standards investigation and hearings process into disrepute; and failing to cooperate fully with the standards process. The grounds were, inter alia, that he lied to the Monitoring Officer, Miranda Carruthers-Watt and to the Panel about sending the apology.
Tour didn't handle the complaint (although nothing in Sandwell happened without him pulling the strings) but handed it to a minion at the Council, Deputy Monitoring Officer David Wilcock. Wilcock was only at Sandwell for a short period, but is a qualified Solicitor of some years' standing.
Despite the documentation set out below, the evidence at the Panel hearing and the unanimous finding that Melia had shown no remorse whatsoever for the assault, Wilcock was able to find that as Tour had slipped the draft apology into the evidence bundle, and in the face of the actual evidence, that:
"[Melia] was able to produce a copy of the [my emphasis] original written apology in the complaint proceedings ... I am unable to conclude that [Melia] lied".
This is absolutely appalling from a Deputy MO and qualified Solicitor but worse still, Wilcock reported that the (anonymous) Independent Person had been consulted and fully agreed with his incredible findings. Saunders wrote to the Council who confirmed that the Independent Person was indeed Richard Phillips, the very person who had been on the original panel! but was now able to conclude that the apology had, indeed, been sent. Quite incredible although "normal" for Sandwell which was recently placed under Government "Special Measures" for two years due to "serious governance issues".
It is high time that the disciplinary system for councillors is taken out of the hands of their colleagues and and becomes a genuinely transparent and independent process.
Epilogue
Despite his appalling behaviour and criminal conviction, Melia is Deputy Mayor of Sandwell this municipal year, and will be Mayor next year.
Carruthers-Watt was City Solicitor at Salford Council - 2015 - 2020. Wilcock was Interim City Solicitor and Monitoring Officer (part-time) in 2021 and is now a part-time Solicitor "Corporate Projects" at Salford. Surjit Tour has just been appointed as City Solicitor and Monitoring Officer at, yes, you guessed it, Salford Council!
For more on Surjit Tour read numerous posts on the Skidder blog at sandwellskidder.blogspot.com and "Monitoring the Monitoring Officer" at crowmultimedia.blogspot.com
rottencouncils@gmail.com
A Crow Multimedia publication
The email correspondence about the non-existent "apology":
Email - Skidder to SMBC - 11/10/22
“Surjit Tour has sent me an investigation into Melia's attack on me.
Before I comment within the time limit specified please send me the supposed apology from Melia (which I have not received) and the newspaper articles in which he is alleged to have shown remorse.”
Email - Surjit Tour to Skidder - 17/10/22 (Part)
“Paragraph 7 of the arrangements explicitly states that the evidence gathered during the investigation is not shared with the parties during the ‘maxwellisation’ process. If you dispute any elements of the report, please can you state the extracts that you dispute and why. Your comments will then be forwarded to the investigator for her to consider prior to her completing the final report and submitting it to me for consideration.”
Email - Skidder to SMBC & Miranda Carruthers-Watt - 23/10/22
“THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
On 11th October, and despite the time taken to deal with this blindingly-obvious matter so far, I was sent the draft Hoey Ainscough report excluding Appendix 1. I was ordered to reply (if so advised) within just 10 working days which I now do subject to retaining the specific right to comment on Melia's lie that he has apologised, and clarification of the news reports allegedly showing Melia expressing remorse for his attack on me.
I did write to the Monitoring Officer but, as usual, he has been obstructive and refused to provide the information requested. Hence why I reserve the right to respond when these issues are clarified.As it is, there is at least the implication that I am lying when I say there has been no apology and that is potentially defamatory. As it is, Hoey Ainscough says that it is important that Melia acknowledge his wrongdoing although I am sure this matter will now become subject to the usual cover-up.
I do not understand how Hoey Ainscough - who are no doubt being paid handsomely by the taxpayer - can simply make the bold assertion that Melia has apologised without providing any evidence of this whatsoever and in the enclosed document I refer to Melia's obligation to fully assist the standards investigation.”
Extracts from the enclosed document:
Paragraph 1.3
Of “... Hoey Ainscough Associates Limited who are providing support to the Council in respect of a number of matters …”
Comment: This comment raises clear concerns about Hoey Ainscough’s impartiality given that they are clearly earning fees on a number of SMBC matters.
Of: “I asked Cllr Melia if he would be prepared to apologise to Mr Saunders. Cllr Melia says that he has already apologised. It is not clear if that was an apology to the complainant or a general apology made for his behaviour.
Comment 1: Cllr Melia has NOT apologised to me.
Comment 2: It is a requirement of the Members Code of Conduct that councillors co-operate with standards investigations. Why were Hoey Ainscough seemingly unable to ascertain this basic information from Melia himself? What are they being paid for?
Paragraph 3.1
Of: “I arranged interviews [plural] with Cllr Melia …”
Comment: Why then were Hoey Ainscough unable to ascertain details of Melia’s alleged “apology”? [See also Paragrapgh 1.4 above.]
Of: “Appendix 1 [a representative section of media reports]”.
Comment: This has NOT been supplied to me. Further, I wrote to Tour, SMBC’s Monitoring Officer on 11th October, 2022 asking:
“Before I comment within the time limit specified please send me the supposed apology from Melia (which I have not received) and the newspaper articles in which he is alleged to have shown remorse.”
Tour has refused to forward the supposed apology or the newspaper articles referred to. Neither has he forwarded Appendix 1. Thus I specifically reserve my position and my right of reply in respect of those matters.
Of: “In my view, however, it is important that Cllr Melia acknowledge that his behaviour was not acceptable”.
Comment: following on from what is said above Hoey Ainscough have not established that Melia is sorry at all and Tour is not prepared to say in what form Melia’s alleged apology was [made] - probably for the simple reason there has not been one.
Comment: Hoey Ainscough are right to recognise my journalistic/media work. We also know which way this is likely to go noting the identity of the Monitoring Officer and his track record of exonerating Sandwell Labour Councillors.
This matter is NOT suitable for informal remedial process - even leaving aside the fact that Melia is STILL lying about an apology - because it involves an unwarranted physical assault of a journalist and damage to his recording equipment.
Of: “Cllr Melia says that he has apologised to Mr Saunders”.
Comment: This is an outright lie. He has NOT apologised to me. Tour was asked about the apology but, unsurprisingly, is refusing to provide any information of the alleged apology which is not provided by Hoey Ainscough either. I have placed on social media that Melia is lying about an apology and no doubt Hoey Ainscough or the Monitoring Officer will re-question Melia and amend the Report to show that no apology has been made to me.
Email: Skidder to Tour, Carruthers-Watt and Melia himself - 28/11/22
“THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
Tour has written to me on 25th November, 2022 sending me what is supposed to be the final version of a Report by Miranda Carruthers-Watt into the incident when Melia assaulted me.
Tour and Carruthers-Watt appear to have totally ignored my email of 23rd October, 2022 when I pointed out that Ms Carruthers-Watt states twice that Melia has apologised to me when he has not and she cannot state any proof of Melia's assertion.
As there has been over one month since my email I rather assumed that the investigator - who is apparently being paid £3,600 plus vat - would have actually gone back to Melia and asked him where, when and how Melia says the apology has been made? Seemingly she has not done so.
I am copying in Melia to this so that HE can clarify the position. Clearly you and the investigator have not dealt with this. I will not be stitched-up here and at least I can expose Melia's lies when he is unable to confirm the fictional apology.
I also want this email placed before the Standards Committee if this matter is not clarified NOW.”
Email: Tour to Skidder - 29/11/22
“The issue you raised concerning the apology was referred to the Investigator to consider before the investigation report was finalised.
This issue will be considered by the Standards Panel if the Panel determines that Cllr Melia has breached the Members’ Code of Conduct. The Panel will be advised of the conflicting position you have raised.
I have raised this issue with the Chair of the Standards Panel (for procedural purposes) [the Chair being a close friend of Melia] and he concurs that the conflicting account as to whether an apology was provided will be a matter that the Panel will examine should Cllr Melia be found to have breached the Members Code of Conduct. You will be afforded the opportunity to make representations to the Panel in relation to the issue.” [This was a lie and I was specifically NOT allowed to make representations to the Panel.]
Email: Skidder to Tour, Miranda Carruthers-Watt (Hoey Ainscough) and Melia himself - 06/12/22
“THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
I think when Mr Tour writes me stupid letters like his recent one he forgets that I am aware of his "history" when dealing with Standards and, indeed, other issues.
I have written to every serving Councillor informing them of the true position with regard to Melia's fictitious apology.
Ms Carruthers-Watt did not strike me as being an incompetent Solicitor and so I am perplexed why she has not simply asked Melia for proof of his assertion and placed his response in her Report. Perhaps I am wrong about her expensive abilities (£3,600 ex vat according to The Birmingham Mail yesterday) or perhaps she has been got at? Mr Tour is a Solicitor, and so why can't he ask Melia where, when and how this supposed apology was made?
As it is I fundamentally oppose the Report as I have indicated previously. As above, I am taking the appropriate steps to make Councillors aware of the reality.”
Email: Skidder to (almost) all Sandwell Councillors - 06/12/22
“Dear Cllrs
THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
Cllr Melia is putting it about that he has "apologised" for assaulting me. He has not. Indeed he has taken to the press to say that he did nothing wrong, and has shown no remorse whatsoever.
But many of you will know that Melia was crying to the Police and the CPS to be allowed to accept a caution prior to the Court hearing (and, of course, a caution cannot be administered to a person who has not admitted the offence). Of course, he then pleaded GUILTY at Court.
Mr Tour is pulling some stunt and The Birmingham Mail yesterday reported that he had spent £3,600 on an investigator's report. Into what? As Darryl Magher pointed out - that's over a grand a second for the video of the incident!
I have written to the Criminal and asked him to state to whom he claims he has apologised to, and when and where this allegedly happened. As above, he certainly has NOT apologised to me. He has failed to reply, and so draw your own conclusion from that!
Perhaps if he wants to offer me an apology the Mayor will allow him to do so at the next full meeting?
Rest assured - if the Criminal is allowed to keep perpetuating this "apology" lie, this will be publicly exposed.”
Email: Surjit Tour to Skidder - 09/12/22
Further to your complaint against Cllr Melia, a Standards Panel hearing has been called to consider the investigation report in accordance with the Arrangements for dealing with complaints against members on Friday, 16 December at 11am. The hearing will take place in the Council Chamber at Oldbury Council House at 11am in open session, although the Panel will deliberate in private.
The Investigator has decided not to call any witnesses. It is a matter for the investigator as to whether she wishes to call any witnesses. You will not therefore be required to attend as a witness, however you are free to attend the hearing and observe the proceedings from the public gallery. [Why did Carruthers-Watt exclude me?]
The Panel is aware of the issue over whether an apology has been provided to you. The issue will be addressed by the Panel at the hearing. The Panel may call you to address the Panel on this specific issue if you are in attendance. [Again this was a lie and the Panel very aggressively prevented me from giving evidence.]
Email: Skidder to Members of the Ethical Standards Panel due to hear this matter and to Melia himself (extract) - 15th December, 2022
I have already written to you collectively concerning Melia's lie that he has apologised for his conduct when he has not - indeed he has spoken to the press trying to justify his - admitted - criminal conduct.
The Investigator and Tour refused to remove his allegation concerning the apology from the report before you tomorrow without asking Melia to provide evidence. Tour tells me - for what that is worth - that he has somehow appraised you of the contradiction concerning the fictitious apology. No doubt tomorrow - given the reticence of Tour and the Investigator to question Melia themselves about the apology - you will no doubt do so in public.
[The email also dealt with a request that a named Councillor be removed from the Panel as he was telephoning Saunders at home threatening him. This was actually agreed to!]
