Council Leader Denies Misleading Full Council Meeting

Published on: 13 Oct, 2015
Updated on: 14 Oct, 2015

Stephen Mansbridge at Holy Trinity Hall explaining his vision for Guildford to The Guildford Society audience - Photo Mike Sleigh

Council leader Stephen Mansbridge

Council leader Stephen Mansbridge has denied misleading a full council meeting of Guildford Borough Council (GBC) about his association with a petition to bring in an elected mayor.

The denial follows the revelation of minutes of a Surrey Students’ Union executive committee meeting, held in March this year (2015), which record that Cllr Mansbridge approached the president of the Surrey Students’ Union asking for its support with a petition seeking a referendum for an elected mayor for Guildford.

The minutes state: “A Motion was circulated to the committee by the President. MH [Maz Hussain] gave a brief overview of the Motion. Councillor Stephen Mansbridge, Leader of Guildford Borough Council approached MH to ask for the Union to support the current proposals for an elected Mayor of Guildford. MH added that if we can encourage students to sign the petition; 5,000 signatures could trigger a referendum.”

An extract of the minutes of the Surrey Students' Union executive committee meeting held on March 13th this year.

An extract of the minutes of the Surrey Students’ Union executive committee meeting held on March 13 this year which are published online. (ASu stands for Alan Sutherland the Students Union CEO. SM in the extract stands for Simona Mariuta, union chair, not Stephen Mansbridge.)

But in a full council meeting held on July 28th this year Cllr Angela Gunning (Lab, Stoke) said: “I have not heard councillor Mansbridge say anything to date about the option of a directly elected mayor, so I would like to know why there is a reference in Private Eye on June 26 where it says: “He hopes to become the town’s first elected mayor and Monika [former councillor Monika Juneja] is right behind him.”

Cllr Angela Gunning

“It would be very helpful to this council if he confirmed or denied this statement and I’d like to know Cllr Mansbridge’s connection with this petition?”

To those present at the July meeting the council leader appeared to deny any connection with the petition. He said in response: “In short Cllr Gunning, irrelevant and no. The discreditation that has occurred in Private Eye has been an orchestrated campaign by the Guildford Greenbelt Group for which I have documentary evidence. That is why it has appeared so regularly.

“Secondly, I think we need to be aware that it is any individual’s right, if they chose to exercise it, to put together a petition.”

Cllr Mansbridge (Con, Ash South & Tongham) continued to defend former councillor Monika Juneja’s role in the petition while she was still a serving councillor: “Cllr Juneja, I think, only had three days of being a councillor [while the petition was being raised] until she stood down as part of the election.”

The student minutes show that the petition in favour of an elected mayor was being planned at least as early as March, two months before the election. Monika Juneja was, on the day of the election, seen in the vicinity of polling stations collecting signatures. Just days later she was in the dock at the Old Bailey where she was convicted of forgery, deception and pretending to be a barrister.

Stephen Mansbridge then continued during his statement to the full council in July to criticise Cllr Susan Parker (GGG, Send) for her involvement with another petition, which seeks a return to a committee style of governance at GBC. He said: “…we do have a councillor in this chamber who seeks to subvert the decisions of this chamber by continuing to orchestrate a petition.”

Cllr Parker had initiated her petition in the late summer of 2014, around nine months before she was elected as a borough councillor.

Cllr Mansbridge today (October 13) responded: “In relation to Cllr Gunning’s question at full council, I gave an answer to her question, which was absolutely true. The piece in Private Eye was irrelevant and I did not want to be the first mayor of Guildford.

“The petition for a referendum for a directly elected mayor serves two purposes: if successful and if it was accepted first, then it would nullify for ten years the alternative petition. Secondly, it asks a question for a referendum, where people can reach a democratic decision.

“The petition to hold a referendum to change to the committee system, if successful, would be a retrograde step in the progress of this council and fortunately most councillors are in agreement about this.”

Cllr Mansbridge claimed that in the question put to him by The Guildford Dragon NEWS the extract of the students’ minutes had been quoted out of context but a copy of the full minutes was attached to the email.

Cllr Susan Parker

Cllr Susan Parker, who leads the Guildford Greenbelt Group, said this evening: “Guildford Borough Council’s code of conduct for councillors includes required principles of openness and honesty.

“Cllr Mansbridge has misled the council by appearing to say that he did not have a connection to the mayoral petition, when he had previously promoted the mayoral petition at the University of Surrey.

“He has now made it clear that a major purpose of the mayoral petition was to block Local Democracy’s petition for increased involvement by all councillors in local government.”

Few councillors, if any, within the current Tory group are believed to have known of their leader’s direct involvement with the petition which was ostensibly organised by Monika Juneja. She has steadfastly refused to say who financed the payments, amounting to more than £5,000, given to students collecting signatures.

Mustie Smith, the current president of the Surrey Students’ Union, has said that he does not know who supplied the money and that he and his colleagues had been surprised that Monika Juneja was named as the petition’s organiser.

Cllr Paul Spooner

The deputy leader of the Tory group at GBC, Cllr Paul Spooner (Ash South & Tongham), who is known to have disagreed with the council leader over Monika Juneja’s attendance at a meeting in Millmead in July, said this evening: “We may wish to respond as a Conservative Group to this once published but I see no purpose in a personal comment at this time.”

Responses to Council Leader Denies Misleading Full Council Meeting

Janette Panton Reply

October 14, 2015 at 8:28 am

I can’t say I am surprised at this news, as it is what a lot of us suspected all along.

How many times does Cllr Mansbridge have to disgrace himself and bring humiliation on our Borough Council before something is done?
Jim Allen Reply

October 14, 2015 at 11:21 am

Which of these applies to the current situation?

“Now is the winter of our discontent.”

“The man doth protest too much, methinks”

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

“It is dangerous to be right when those in power are wrong”

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

It really makes me wanna scream: “Don’t you get it!”
Ben Paton Reply

October 14, 2015 at 2:35 pm

Well, well, well. The plot grows thicker.

It seems that the leader has adopted the tactics of a medieval pope who seeks to drum up support from among the faithful – in this case a student’s union, and to excommunicate anyone who disagrees with him – in this case GGG.

GGG’s reward for pointing out logical inconsistencies and policy errors has been to be accused of ‘subversion’. It is worth pointing out that Surrey County Council (Conservative controlled) adopted very similar policies on the green belt to GGG’s and that actually GGG’s policies make them better Conservatives than a number of so-called Conservatives on the Guildford Executive.

As for the criticisms of the Local Democracy petition, it would now appear that they were pure hypocrisy. Perhaps Ms Juneja would now disclose where the money came from to pay the students to collect signatures?

And as for GBC’s codes of conduct? No doubt there’ll be another inquiry which will find that everything in the “State of Guildford” is just fine.
Adrian Atkinson Reply

October 14, 2015 at 2:41 pm

DNP await advice
Cllr Mansbridge seems to be trying to re-write history in his explanation. The questions he was asked were – is the suggestion by the Private Eye true – he answered “irrelevant”, the other question was about his association with the petition, to this he said “no”.

As a person watching the webcast live at the time he could not have been clearer in my opinion – I could understand a stance on the Private Eye being irrelevant but I was clear, as everybody in the chamber I think would have been, as to what Cllr Gunning was asking and also clear on what Cllr Mansbridge was indicating with his answer which was that he was not associated with the petition.

We have been misled.

If one looks at the webcast it is insulting to the chamber and Cllr Gunning in particular that Cllr Mansbirdge basically gave a two worded answer to her question but gave a huge amount of airtime to Monika Juneja and criticising Cllr Parker from the Guildford Greenbelt Group who he said was subverting the decision of the council by orchestrating a petition.

One had no alternative but to conclude that, in his disgust at a petition being orchestrated by a sitting councillor, he was re-affirming the answer to Cllr Gunning’s question that he was not involved in the Juneja mayoral petition.

We have been misled and taking into account the content of Cllr Mansbridge’s following tirade he appeared to wilfully mislead us knowing full well he had been involved with the other petition.

Cllr Mansbridge has said that his answer “no” was in answer to the the request that he confirmed the statement contained in the Private Eye article i.e. their claim that he wished to become an elected mayor of Guildford, rather than the question about his connection with the petition. Ed.
- Adrian Atkinson Reply
  
  October 15, 2015 at 10:25 am
  
  So he [Cllr Mansbridge] can’t be trusted to answer questions put to him in the chamber.
  
  He was clearly asked two questions and gave two answers. So is he claiming he didn’t answer Cllr Gunning’s second question?
  
  Either way he has misled in the context of purposefully not answering the second question and the tirade which followed. He was insulting to Cllr Parker for starting a petition before she became a Cllr when all along he was doing exactly the same while trying to claim the moral high ground.
  
  To me that is clearly breaking the council code relating to openness and honesty.
  
  I guess if Monika Juneja wasn’t found to be dishonest by the council investigation you don’t have to be the sharpest tool in the box to know which way this is likely to end up.
Brian Holt Reply

October 14, 2015 at 3:07 pm

Council leader Stephen Mansbridge has to turn to university students for support, when as leader of the council he should be informing us, the Guildford public. We are the ones he should be asking when making decisions about Guildford’s future.
Martin Elliott Reply

October 14, 2015 at 3:24 pm

So yet another file of “documentary evidence” which Mr Mansbridge has of organisations ‘out to get him’ and his business associates. He’s even stated, on oath’ that they exist in the Old Bailey.

Its all very well making accusations but the back up evidence needs to be confirmed, by an independent party if necessary.

Cllr Mansbridge does nothing to justify his position by refusing inspection of his claimed files.
Adam Aaronson Reply

October 14, 2015 at 8:33 pm

The article states: “Few councillors, if any, within the current Tory group are believed to have known of their leader’s direct involvement with the petition which was ostensibly organised by Monika Juneja. She has steadfastly refused to say who financed the payments, amounting to more than £5,000, given to students collecting signatures.”

Is it legal to pay canvassers, students or otherwise, to collect signatures for a petition of this nature?

This question has arisen before. Our understanding is that it is not illegal to pay those who are collecting signatures for any petition. Ed
Jules Cranwell Reply

October 14, 2015 at 8:51 pm

For this behaviour in parliament, an MP would lose the party whip. Is it time to impeach Mansbridge for yet again bringing his party into disrepute?

He seems to have set out to get the student vote. Given most students will not remain after their studies to suffer the devastation that could cause, this in unconscionable, and it is time he went.
Steve Pownall Reply

October 16, 2015 at 10:31 am

Coming late to this issue it is striking to read here Cllr Stephen Mansbridge: 1. quoted as saying that another councillor is “seeking to subvert” the decisions of the council by her involvement with a petition seeking change to council structures, 2. saying, in his own defence, that it is every councillor’s right to act in this way, and 3. denying having done so himself when the evidence is clear that he both supported a petition and appears to have misled the council by withholding some of the pertinent facts.
Jim Allen Reply

October 16, 2015 at 2:09 pm

I vote for Christian Holiday [Conservative ward councillor for Burpham] for council leader.
Anna-Marie Davis Reply

October 16, 2015 at 4:48 pm

I think that Councillors from all parties must now recognise that if this man remains the leader after apparently misleading the council, all confidence in Guildford Borough Council, and its officers, will be lost among the electorate.

The councillor code of conduct must be abided by and that duty is encoded in statute. The monitoring officer is responsible for ensuring that it is upheld. This behaviour laughs in the face of transparency and openness.

If he is allowed to continue on his current trajectory despite this behaviour then the mechanisms which have failed to bring him to account must also be scrutinised.
Valerie Thompson Reply

October 18, 2015 at 9:32 am

Anyone else but Mr Mansbridge.

Some claimed that Monika Juneja funded the student payments, even after it was said that she had spent all her savings on her defence lawyers. She then wrote in the Surrey Advertiser, in reply to a critical letter by me, that it was none of my business to ask where the money came from.
Ben Paton Reply

October 18, 2015 at 11:31 pm

Anna Marie Davis is spot on. The direct question was: what is Mr Mansbridge’s connection with the petition?

His answer was ‘irrelevant and no’ before launching into a nonsensical attack on GGG.

Whatever the answer was it was not transparent. It created the impression, or did nothing to dispel it, that Mr Mansbridge had nothing to do with the petition.

This mix of talking past people, scorning opposition, and mouthing fine principles has become the leadership style of GBC. There’s a whole raft of questions to do with the draft local plan which have been treated with the same arrogant contempt.

We are all sick of due process and facts that don’t suit the leadership being routinely ignored. GBC has laughed in the face of its codes of conduct for so long that it is itself a laughing stock.