(A correspondent also writes separately – two heads are better than one)
This meeting was kept firmly on track and focussed by the chair, Cllr Eleanor Rylance. She said this was an emotive subject that needed to be treated in a dignified and sensitive way.
It turned out to be a highly constructive one.
[Wisely, the Labour Group decided to set aside, for now, their reported intention to table a “Vote of no Confidence in the Chief Executive”.]
The vote to accept the report’s recommendations was passed unanimously by all 45 members present, with a little tweaking to strengthen them, and with the addition of:
- a referral to the Audit and Governance Committee to review record keeping in the council; and
- a request to the council to ask further questions of both the Police and DCC,
EDDC should now be in a much better place with regard to safeguarding.
There are, however, still unanswered questions as exemplified by both the first and last speakers, former Cllr Cathy Gardner speaking as a member of the public and Cllr Jess Bailey who has been the inexhaustible driving force behind the inquiry.
Cathy Gardner raised questions that the inquiry may have been frustrated by some members and officers refusing to cooperate, if so were further efforts going to be made to fill in the gaps?
At the end, Cllr Jess Bailey said there were still unanswered questions: there was a total lack of records, posing subsidiary questions regarding where they were, what happened to them, and what impact does this have on other council business?
The Verita Report and its recommendations
David Scott, lead author of the Verita reports gave a presentation and then took part in a Q&A session from members.
Notable topics discussed that caught Owl’s eye include:
Why didn’t the Safeguarding Officer attend the LADO meeting
(Local Authority Designated Officers responsible for managing allegations against adults who work with children).
Why did the former Monitoring Officer go to the first LADO meeting at DCC when the Safeguarding Officer might seem more appropriate? This is unusual. DCC so far have refused to give an explanation.
Reference to a mysterious report
A mysterious report attributed to the auditors “Grant Thornton” is referred to by Verita (pages 9 & 17 supplementary report). The CEO had advised Verita in May that he reserved the right, before formally responding to them, to view this report from Grant Thornton.
Cllr. Christopher Burhop asked what this report was.
From the Verita Supplementary report (see page 17 above) it is likely to be the one referred to by the CEO when he wrote:
“A report from the Council’s external auditors (Grant Thornton) into my concerns about the procurement process the Council adopted with regard to this investigation.”
So far this Grant Thornton report does not seem to have been released to the council.
Explanation for budget overspend
During questions it was also established that Verita were on budget when they delivered their first report but have incurred an additional £8K to review the further information from the Police.
This information referred to the inclusion in the minutes of the 9 March 2016 LADO meeting at DCC of the following:
“The Chief of East Devon District Council had been alerted to the situation.”
Having been unable to corroborate this statement, Verita concluded that it does not constitute sufficiently reliable evidence that the CEO of EDDC was aware of the Humphreys situation.
(Though it does indicate that someone in EDDC, other than the former Monitoring Officer who attended the meeting, had been informed.)
Verita’s reputation queried
Cllr Paul Arnott asked for a response to comments that had been made during the inquiry regarding Verita’s reputation.
Mr Scott replied that in the only face to face meeting Verita had with the CEO, the CEO made it clear that he didn’t believe Verita had enough background in Local Government to be competent to do the work and that he didn’t believe they would be impartial.
Mr Scott also said the CEO “pushed back strongly” against their proposed approach. Apparently this criticism was repeated on several occasions, for example, to the commissioning group.
(This is an experienced organisation who have worked on previous safeguarding issues. Included in the team was a lawyer with 25 years experience of criminal prosecutions, investigations, public inquiries etc.)
Why all interviews were carried out by correspondence
It also came up in answers to questions that initially the CEO had wanted to sit in on all interviews with officers in group sessions. All officers declined to be interviewed and questions were put in correspondence, a procedure Verita described as “unusual in their experience”.
A Victim’s perspective
In his closing remarks Council Leader Paul Arnott thanked everyone for the quality of the debate and said that everyone should read from a victim’s perspective printed on page 25 of the report
Postscript
Owl was unable to see whether the CEO attended in the chamber.
The debate can be viewed here:
East Devon Watch 
So if I have got this right, the Conservative councillors and EDDC officers closed ranks to avoid being interviewed, and somehow key paperwork has “gone missing” – and the obvious question is whether someone (perhaps one or more of these councillors or officers) made them disappear?
My overall impression here is that the Conservative councillors and the EDDC officers have successfully obstructed this investigation in order to avoid accountability for their behaviour.
Personally I feel that their unwillingness to be open in this investigation is an absolute disgrace – and goes against the Nolan Principles – as is their unwillingness to resign in shame, and for those still in office a vote of no confidence should be made against each and every one of them at the earliest possible opportunity.
LikeLike
Perhaps it’s not fair to blame all those officers or even the conservative councillors.
Many would consider that this is an example of coercive control, an abusive form of behaviour which can be evidenced many times over the years under Mr Williams’ watch. The most recent previous example which comes to mind is the treatment of Cllr Millar when trying to be allowed to carry out his own cabinet responsibilities within the Ingham mongrel administration, in 2019.
Quite why Mr Williams felt that these highly qualified and well paid senior officers were incapable of giving their own evidence to this highly professional team is, as they say, open to speculation.
Why couldn’t each councillor, not just conservatives, have been asked in turn, as with the procedure for a recorded vote, when they first heard of Humphreys’ legal difficulties? This might have saved 53k and given us more information than we have now. This avoidance is straight from the Williams play book. He did exactly the same when he came to Exmouth for a meeting in 2012, preventing councillors from answering a question from the public about when they had actually first heard about some missing public money. At the same meeting he waved through some misleading minutes on a technicality, despite being aware they were likely to be used in determining a standards complaint.
Of course behaviour in 2012, and more closely related behaviour and contact in 2014 is outside of Verita’s remit.
LikeLike
This is clearly a very emotive subject but Owl believes it is best to close this particular string of correspondence. Owl thanks all those who have submitted further comments.
LikeLike
Wise old Owl…
Of course the intention of the report was never to point the finger, just an attempt to find out how on earth things happened and to improve process.
Clearly safeguarding procedures will be better, or better adhered to, and the proposed efforts to gain clarity from those organisations more intimately involved, and over a longer period, is to be applauded.
Cllr Arnott’s parting point is of the utmost importance. The most significant person in this investigation is the person failed and then harassed by the police, who still had the courage to come forward to this council via his elected representatives.
To him I would add the other three victims, present on paper in 2016 but only one of them sufficiently robust by 2020 as to come to court. I hope the efforts and progress to date reassures these gentlemen that there are people in our community who genuinely do care.
LikeLike