Actions of EDDC following the allegations and criminal charges against John Humphreys
At last, this evening, councillors will get the opportunity to discuss the report prepared by Verita on their inquiry.
This has tried to establish the actions of EDDC following the allegations and criminal charges against John Humphreys.
It does not seek to apportion blame or censure anyone, but to learn lessons.
The following are the main elements of the terms of reference for the investigation:
- establish what information was known by EDDC councillors and officers about John Humphreys and any investigations into the allegations against him.
- understand the EDDC decision-making processes in considering John Humphreys’ continued position as a councillor after his arrest.
- determine the extent to which the EDDC considered whether John Humphreys presented any safeguarding risks to children in the context of his party political and councillor roles.
- examine what, if any, safeguarding measures were put into place following the 2016 arrest and assess the effectiveness of their implementation and monitoring. describe the process by which the EDDC bestowed the honour of Honorary Alderman on John Humphreys.
- determine whether the EDDC complied with its own policies and procedures in making this decision.
- review the decision-making processes deployed by EDDC following Mr Humphrey’s conviction to remove his honorary title and to review its actions in the handling of this matter.
- determine whether any improvements could be made to EDCC’s safeguarding and governance arrangements in light of the findings of the investigation.
- report on any other significant issues that arise in the course of the investigation that bear on its terms of reference.
The purpose of the meeting is to consider and discuss Verita’s report, findings and recommendations; and the supplementary report issued after information from the Police was received that appeared to cast doubt on the accuracy of the evidence gathered originally.
It has been reported that the Labour Group might seek an opportunity to table a vote of “no confidence” in the Chief Executive.
Owl can understand their frustration but thinks this would be a distraction from the purpose in hand. It would stray far from the formal agenda.
It has taken a long time to get here
It is worth recalling the sequence of events leading up to the formal commissioning and publication of these reports. The following chronicle has drawn heavily on previous posts such as the report of the council debate in September 2022.
Back in April 2022 the council voted unanimously, with one abstention, to conduct an investigation into how Humphreys continued in his council roles, with access to children, and then became an honorary Alderman after his arrest. The Chief Executive, Mark Williams, was asked to advise how this could be done.
In June 2022 Mark Williams was reported as saying he was awaiting legal opinion. He followed “So my advice to cabinet is that I will bring a report in July. Pushing the timetable earlier is inappropriate and you may well end up making an erroneous decision.”…..“Rushing something as important as this is, in my opinion, inappropriate.”
Yet three months after this, and five months after the unanimous vote to proceed, the Council met again in September last year to vote on whether or not to conduct an investigation. By then, Mark Williams had decided to advise the council against taking any such action because, in his opinion, all that was to be known was known and such an exercise would be a waste of taxpayers money.
We now have the reports and seem to have learned a surprising amount that is new.
This “foot dragging” led Cllr Jess Bailey to take the unusual step of raising a ”requisition order” to appoint, after research, a specific independent investigation organisation, Verita, to conduct one (referred to below as Option A).
(For a requisition order to be put to the vote it has to be supported by nine councillors.)
Her move prompted Mark Williams to come up with an alternative (Option B) which would involve commissioning a legal practice to undertake the investigation. However, his first recommendation to the council was to drop the notion of conducting an investigation, but if the council rejected this advice then it should consider his Option B as an alternative to Option A.
After debate, the council voted to conduct an independent investigation by 27 votes to 9 with 5 abstensions. There were quite a few apologies.
The council then turned its attention to the two options put before it.
During this, in what seemed a surprising move to Owl, the Chief Executive suggested more options such as conducting an external audit or even getting asking the Secretary of State to conduct a review through a process whereby the council reported itself for misconduct!
During discussion even more options emerged such as using Ofsted, the option recently adopted by Devon County Council.
When put to the vote, Council members voted:
22 votes to choose Option A, zero votes for Option B with 18 abstentions.
So the option produced by the Chief Executive was completely rejected.
At this point one is left with the overwhelming impression that the council had been badly let down by Mark Williams, Chief Executive.
In April 2022 Mark Williams had been asked to advise how an independent investigation could be conducted. This was the moment when he could have come up with the idea, that Devon County Council came up with, of using Ofsted, or indeed any of the other options he suddenly threw into the pot at the September meeting. But he didn’t, he left a void and failed to give any constructive advice other than an investigation is unnecessary and a waste of money until he produced his surprise options during the meeting in September.
We know the September 2022 debate was watched by one of the victims. He very courageously gave an introductory speech as a member of the public. Special arrangements had been made so that he could do this anonymously. He spoke about how his life had been wrecked, how important it was for his rehabilitation to be heard and how an investigation would help him.
East Devon Watch 
It’s interesting to be reminded that Mr Williams suggested Ofsted, or DCC’s former Ofsted inspector, as one of his numerous options. The DCC report is widely considered to be woeful and a whitewash. When Mr Williams aludes to the DCC commissioned report in his contribution to the September’22 debate he points out that the gentleman, Mike Ferguson, has conducted numerous previous safeguarding reviews for DCC. This information has not been publicly available otherwise. Mr Williams has obviously been engaged in significant conversation with DCC at this stage. Mr Williams has stated to Verita that he had not seen the minutes of the first LADO meeting which triggered the Verita supplementary investigation and report. DCC say there was no amendment. However this statement was not present in the redacted minutes published in Mr Ferguson’s report. Were there two sets of minutes for this meeting, or did a DCC officer redact this reference either before handing to Mr Ferguson or before publication? Has anyone asked DCC this? Have they also been asked how it was possible for them to give Verita minutes of the third LADO meeting, which Mr Ferguson stated had not occurred? Have DCC further been asked why they told Verita of 3 DCC employees present at the LADO meetings when it is clear from the minutes of the first two that there were a minimum of five and probably six DCC employees at those meetings?
LikeLike