Cllr Reeve Complaint – What Next?

Published on: 19 Sep, 2017
Updated on: 20 Sep, 2017

Cllr Reeve at the complaints hearing.

The refusal by Cllr David Reeve (GGG, Clandon and Horsley) to accept one of the sanctions imposed by the Hearings Sub-committee last week appears to have created an unprecedented situation at Guildford Borough Council (GBC).

Although it is known that there have been several complaints against councillors in the last few years, only one other, against Cllr Marsha Moseley (Con, Ash Vale), is believed to have been upheld and none have resulted in a councillor refusing a Hearings Sub-committee’s recommended sanction.

Cllr Reeve agreed to apologise to a council officer for using one item of data from a document provided in confidence but refused to undergo one-to-one training on the councillor codes.

A report of the hearing is expected to be completed by the deputy monitoring officer by the end of this week and will form the basis for any further consideration of the case. But it remains uncertain whether Cllr Reeve can be forced, in some way, to accept the re-training sanction or what further sanctions, if any, can be imposed.

A GBC spokesperson said today (September 19): “The deputy monitoring officer will issue the Hearings Sub-committee’s full written decision and reasons within approximately ten working days following the Sub-Committee hearing.  This will be sent to Cllr David Reeve, and the two complainants – Cllr Paul Spooner and Cllr Caroline Reeves.  A summary of the decision and reasons will also be published on the council’s website.

“There will be a short report to the full council meeting on 10 October 2017 which will set out details of the sanctions recommended by the sub-committee. This report, which will be available for viewing on the council’s website, when the agenda for the council meeting is published, will outline the process to be followed.

“In terms of who can vote on the matter at the council meeting, this is ultimately a decision for the individual councillors concerned, however, we will provide them with guidance as necessary in due course.”

Cllr Marsha Moseley

Cllr Marsha Moseley (Con, Ash Vale) last year (2016) appeared to refuse to make a public apology for comparing the public gallery, at a planning meeting, to a “bloody rabble”.

The requirement for a public apology was recommended by an independent investigator and was apparently accepted up by the GBC monitoring officer at the time, Satish Mistry.

The impasse between Moseley and Mistry was only resolved when Mistry’s replacement, Sandra Herbert, agreed that Cllr Moseley need only send an emailed apology to the complainants – but they refused it. So a sub-committee of councillors then met in private and agreed the emailed apology was sufficient.

The difference in the case against Cllr Reeve is that the Hearings Sub-committee, not just the monitoring officer, has agreed with the investigator’s recommended sanctions.

See also: Opinion: The Reeve’s Tale – What Can Be Learned From This Whole Sorry Saga?

Share This Post