It has taken us a few days to get hold of the actual Standards Committee judgement in this referral of Councillor Gethin Evans for leaking information to the press. However, once we had a copy it soon became apparent that Labour were once again spinning a line.As the Labour spinners well know the allegations against Gethin Evans were a great deal more serious than that he leaked the outcome of the investigation. In fact when the Ombudsman carried out his inquiry, he concluded that there was 'credible prima facie evidence' that Councillor Evans had 'breached paragraph 5(a) of the Code of Conduct' and furthermore that the 'alleged breach was a material one'. What happened next was unprecedented.
The Standards Committee produced a list of people who they considered should have been interviewed in the course of the investigation. The list was so long that it would not have disgraced a proper police inquiry, which is presumably why the Ombudsman did not adopt this course of action in the first place. Nobody is suggesting that there might have been anything like a closing of ranks on the Standards Committee but the sort of issues that were raised were unusual to say the least. The one thing that is not in the decision letter is any views on the motives of the complainant, yet another Labour invention.
Even then Gethin Evans did not get the clean bill of health that Labour are claiming. The allegation was that Evans had committed a breach of the Code by disclosing confidential information to the press on the voting that took place at the Chief Officer Disciplinary Meeting. Their conclusion was that it was probable that there had been a breach of the Code, the same finding as had been reached by the Ombudsman. However, because there would be serious consequences for Gethin Evans if they ruled against him then they decided that a higher level of proof was needed, and so dismissed the charge altogether.
Having made this decision the Standards Committee then tried to cover its tracks. They ruled specifically that their determination 'should not be regarded as justification' for leaking confidential information in the future. They asked that a good practice note be sent to all members of the Council stating that legal advice should be sought in dealing with confidential matters in the future. They also said that it was unacceptable for Councillors to consider that officers can give consent to the release of information from a confidential committee meeting, a specific reference to the defence offered by Gethin Evans to the Ombudsman.
This decision has produced a fascinating response from the Ombudsman himself. He has now written to the Council's Monitoring Officer regarding another complaint made by David Phillips against Councillors Holley, Black and Kinzett. This particular referral also related to an alleged unauthorised disclosure of information and had been referred to the Standards Committee for determination. However the Ombudsman has now rescinded that referral.
Instead, he has decided that in view of the higher level of proof now needed to make such accusations stick there is no point in further considering Phillips' accusations and he has dismissed the complaint altogether. How Phillips will react to this is difficult to predict but we think that he will not be best pleased.
Update: We notice that the Labour spinners continue with their selective readership of the text of the letter to Gethin Evans.
