Letter: Cllr Reeve Will Emerge With His Reputation Enhanced

Published on: 10 Sep, 2017
Updated on: 12 Sep, 2017

Cllrs David Reeve (GGG), Paul Spooner (Con) and Caroline Reeves (Lib Dem).

From David Roberts

Whatever the outcome, it is certain that David Reeve will emerge with his reputation enhanced, and Cllrs Spooner and Reeves with theirs diminished.

This whole debacle, which has lasted 14 months already, stinks of political opportunism, abusing the complaints procedure which exists to protect ordinary individuals from abusive councillors – not to to help council leaders gag opponents. Sledgehammers and nuts come to mind.

The original complaint was never clearly formulated. For reasons best known to herself, Cllr Reeves, leader of the opposition, complained too, while admitting she didn’t “have the brain space” to understand the detail of the SHMA calculation. Even Mistry confessed the complaint was “not on all fours” with the code of conduct.

The complaint was then needlessly escalated. The record shows that Cllr Reeve’s repeated offers to meet and discuss the matter were rebuffed, suggesting bad faith on the part of the complainants.

It is arguable (as Mistry’s comments suggest) that the code of conduct should not even apply to Cllr Reeve’s work on the SHMA, which was not part of his council duties. What isn’t in doubt is the colossal amount of work he put into it, in the public interest, or that he had a clear public mandate to critique the SHMA, based on his election as a GGG councillor.

No-one can claim this was not a legitimate issue of public concern, given the controversies surrounding the SHMA and Local Plan evidence base. His altruistic intentions are beyond doubt, and the quality of his work, far from bringing the council into disrepute, can only have boosted public confidence in their councillor.

No security, personal or privacy issues were involved; the report was merely about hard data. There is no evidence at all of any harm done. And any leak that may have taken place is microscopically trivial when set against the urgent need for the public to understand the draft Local Plan, which will affect their lives for many years to come, before last year’s public consultation ended.

I am not surprised that, as in the Juneja case, the so-called independent solicitor hired at great expense (how much?) to investigate the case, and who interrogated Cllr Reeve for two hours without prior notice as to her role or terms of reference, has concluded in favour of the complainants.

By no stretch of the imagination, however, can the three charges of failing to “treat others with respect”, “disclosure of confidential information” or “bringing the council into disrepute” be substantiated. In such cases one would expect to see evidence such as deceit, violence, abusive behaviour, the leaking of classified documents to the press, crime, fraud, corruption, abuse of office or dereliction of duty.

In this instance, however, Cllr Reeve’s conduct has been exemplary and the complaint merely a piece of crude bullying. The complaint breaches several of the Nolan Principles summarised in para 1(2) of the councillors code of conduct, in addition to paras 2(1), 2(2)b&d and 4. It clearly falls within the terms of complaints that are “vexatious, frivolous and politically motivated” and should have been dismissed immediately. Since this has not happened, it would be legitimate grounds for a counter-complaint under the council complaints procedure.

Responses to Letter: Cllr Reeve Will Emerge With His Reputation Enhanced

Jim Allen Reply

September 10, 2017 at 7:39 pm

Another commentator stating the blindingly obvious.

I simply cannot understand the principle, the rational or the intention of the complainants. They all stood at the last election for the benefit of the community they should all remember this when they enter the chamber.
Ramsey Nagaty Reply

September 11, 2017 at 3:46 pm

I quite agree. This just emphasises the and low depths to which GBC will stoop.
Jules Cranwell Reply

September 12, 2017 at 1:26 am

I suspect that the complainants have still yet to read and grasp the Nolan principles, or they would not have let this sleazy matter progress this far.

As to reputations, I would say destroyed, rather than diminished for the complainants, at least in my eyes.

Regarding ‘confidential information’, exactly how can information that is required by law to be in the public domain be considered confidential?

As to the respect angle, I have always found that respect must be earned, and not to be a right of office.

Cllr Reeve has been a pillar of honesty, decency, and an upholder of the truth throughout this matter. I cannot say the same for his opponents.

Shame on them.
David Roberts Reply

September 12, 2017 at 10:36 am

Since writing the above, a kangaroo court of Cllr Reeve’s Tory and LibDem opponents on Guildford Council have predictably found him guilty as charged. Shame, on these councillors, for their blind tribalism, which, in public opinion, will rebound badly on them.

According to the independent investigator, a solicitor hired by the council, who works in Birmingham, Cllr Reeve’s work on housing numbers in Guildford is of no interest to the public and therefore no “public interest defence” was valid.

Before Cllr Reeve produced his report, the then head of planning in Guildford had also told him that the council were not interested in discussing the subject. It is now for ordinary residents to show how wrong they were.
- John Perkins Reply
  
  September 13, 2017 at 9:20 am
  
  The report of the hearing states, “It is understood that the decisions of the sub-committee were not unanimous.” The sub-committee consisted of four Tory councillors and one Liberal Democrat. 80% representation of a single party was seemingly regarded as balanced by GBC.
  
  How many people, I wonder, will believe that dissent came from one, or possibly two, of the Tories?
  
  It might also be useful to know if the members were allowed any choice in their appointment. Sometimes it’s better not to take part in a game if one thinks the deck might be stacked.
  - A Atkinson Reply
    
    September 13, 2017 at 2:02 pm
    
    Also, it’s a shame that, from what I could see on the webcast, two of the Tories on the sub-committee didn’t even ask a single question of Cllr Reeve.
    
    It all seemed very orchestrated to me.
    
    So justice was done, but was it seen to be done?
Rhiannon Stroud Reply

September 12, 2017 at 6:17 pm

Well said, Cllr Reeve.

As someone who voted for David Reeve to represent me as a councillor, I am amazed and horrified to discover that his conduct has been criticised, let alone subject to a formal investigation and hearing.

David’s work has indeed been exemplary with a huge amount of time spent analysing the SHMA data – not something I could do myself – and I am extremely grateful that David was willing to work on this on our behalf.

We are extremely fortunate to have him as our councillor, I can only thank him for taking this job on and for all the work that he does – he has my unwavering support.