Letter: Complaint Hearing – It’s About the Responsibility of Confidentiality

Published on: 13 Sep, 2017
Updated on: 13 Sep, 2017

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

From Ciaran Doran

Susan Parker (see Letter: Perhaps Councillor Spooner Should Apologise?) clearly has not read the official complaint against Cllr Reeve. The primary complaint was about breech of confidentiality, very simple.

For some reason the letters about this whole subject in the media don’t get it – it’s about the honour of public office and the responsibility of confidentiality when in public office.

It has nothing to do with housing numbers or the scholarly attributes of any individual. Cllr Reeve may be well intentioned but a breach of confidentiality is just that and cannot be let pass without question otherwise we have a complete farce of governmental institutions.

Responses to Letter: Complaint Hearing – It’s About the Responsibility of Confidentiality

John Robson Reply

September 13, 2017 at 11:19 am

Don’t we encourage whistle blowers to inform us of matters of public interest?

After five years, and millions of pounds of expenditure for public consultations on Guildford’s Local Plan, why is the methodology of how the housing number is calculated still being suppressed by the Liberal/Conservative coalition?

The housing number is the cornerstone that will shape this borough for the next 15 years, the lengths and costs that GBC are going to suppress this mechanism suggests to me that they serve masters other than the people that elected them, having said they would protect the green belt.

Why are we still being denied the facts associated with the key variable? Isn’t misleading the public a breach of the council’s code of conduct?
John Perkins Reply

September 13, 2017 at 3:08 pm

There is the issue of whether or not this information can or should be kept from the public. Taxpayers’ money was spent obtaining this figure and so it ought to be public property and disclosure automatic.

Another writer has already pointed out that the law requires that the information be in the public domain. GBC has no right to keep it secret and therefore no right to deem it confidential.
Ben Paton Reply

September 13, 2017 at 5:52 pm

If Ciaran Doran believes that she’ll believe anything. We’ve been spoon-fed this Local Plan and spoon-fed the evidence. This was a show trial, a bit of theatre orchestrated by GBC. The substance of the matter is that Cllr Reeve had the temerity to fulfil his public duty and try to understand what the SHMA numbers mean.

The fact that he disclosed one number from the Experian report – out of a total of some 8,000 is neither here not there. Experian is not complaining. The only complaint was from GBC planning. And their problem? It makes their PR campaign more difficult! In other words, they can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

If one were to take the propaganda at face value one might think that some state secret had been betrayed and that we were dealing with Kim Philby and Anthony Blunt.

In reality, the model behind the SHMA should not be confidential in any case. The only reason it is confidential is that the council has failed in its public duty to make it public. GBC has spent public money, for a public purpose, for a public consultation. To withhold the arithmetic model makes the process a farce. GBC refused to scrutinise the SHMA model. Good grief! What are they there for otherwise?

Only literalists, the self-righteous-form-over-substance-team, and the let’s-not-understand-the-spirit-of-anything-brigade can believe that this hearing was anything but a pretext to try and get a political advantage and close down free speech.

If Cllr Spooner is so keen to apply the letter of the rules, why didn’t he make any complaint about the misdemeanours of his predecessor Ms Juneja? The Scrutiny Committee recorded that the council’s Code of Conduct had not been breached!

Why did he not make a complaint about his predecessor Mr Mansbridge who was caught out implying he had nothing to do with a petition for an Elected Mayor petition when minutes, published here on The Dragon, showed he attended Surrey University’s Student’s Union to promote the idea.

Any councillor who believes in the principles of accountability, openness and transparency should be commending Cllr Reeve not harassing him. The hearing just showcased Cllr Reeve’s honesty and the hypocrisy of the whole process.
Jules Cranwell Reply

September 13, 2017 at 8:15 pm

This is priceless.

Where was the honour in Cllr Spooner’s treatment of Cllr. Parker in council meetings?

Where was the honour in denying the wrongdoings of a forger and liar?

Where was the honour in labelling decent members of the public “a bloody rabble”?

There is dishonour in the treatment meeted out to Cllr Reeve, just because he will not toady to the Tory elite.

This is all about fear of exposure on an unsound evidence base for the discredited Local Plan, and the Tory attempt to silence its critics.
Michael Aaronson Reply

September 13, 2017 at 10:09 pm

Of course, Ciaran Doran is right: this is not solely about the policy issue, nor the qualities of Cllr Reeve.

But nor is it just about confidentiality. Rather it is about the way a democracy should work. Of course, you can take a narrow view and decide to pursue a fellow councillor on a technicality – the release of one piece of data out of 8,000, let us remember.

Alternatively, you can respect the fact that someone is telling you things you don’t want to hear and maybe have the grace to listen.

This spurious vendetta against David Reeve simply brings the council into disrepute for its petty-mindedness, never mind its refusal to disclose the basis on which the housing number has been calculated. So much for local “democracy”.
Alastair Lawson Reply

September 14, 2017 at 5:27 pm

The question is, why was this figure confidential in the first place?

It is a fundamental right for the public to expect the council and their workings to be transparent – where it can be.

Especially for something that has a dramatic impact around Guildford.

Why didn’t they just publish how the figure for housing was calculated? Why is that a secret?

If people knew that, then they might be more in tune with the process behind the Local Plan.

This action taken by the GBC leaves a very bad taste in the mouth and the honour in public office has been dealt a blow.
Peter Shaw Reply

September 15, 2017 at 9:38 am

Breaching confidentiality in the public interest is a valid defence in the Localism Act.

The Borough of Guildford is 89% green belt. Showing that the council produced numbers in their SHMA overcooked the housing number values by as much as 2,000 houses, is significant and very much in the public’s interest. 2,000 homes is the same as one of the three main strategic sites listed in the Local Plan. All of which are within protected green belt land.

The disclosure of one number (taken from a 2013 data set), which was needed to make this case far outweighs the need to maintain confidentiality.

If I had to choose between bulldozing over the environment so 2,000 homes would be built or the disclosure of a single figure, I know where my moral compass guides me too.

Shame on the council for trying to bury this. Shame on the council for trying to make Cllr Reeves a scapegoat. And shame on the council for not properly scrutinising the SHMA in the first place!

I have a Freedom of Information response from the council saying that the council has never “fact checked” the numbers.

They believe the method of the SHMA is “robust” but they have never scrutinised the numbers produced in the SHMA, i.e. they are happy that A + B = C works but they have never checked to see if the numbers A or B are correct! Every time the residents of the borough want to check these numbers, the council have refused and put up a brick wall.

This council executive does not work for me or represent me, they try to play me and my neighbours for a fool. Shame on them and shame on Cllr Spooner!
Jim Allen Reply

September 15, 2017 at 11:22 am

If the need for confidentiality was selectively applied then I would agree with the writer but as Guildford Borough Council considers “everything relevant” to be confidential – it makes mockery of the word.

It should also be noted there is a difference between “commercially confidential between two commercial companies” – who have not displayed to the pubic anything – and “commercially confidential; company to local government” when FOI considerations need to be considered as part of that claim.

GBC are not a private company and should remember this as they go about claiming things in the public domain are commercially confidential.
David Roberts Reply

September 15, 2017 at 3:46 pm

Since we’re talking about transparency, Ciaran Doran is chair of the Guildford Lib Dems.
A Atkinson Reply

September 17, 2017 at 10:23 pm

How can Cllr Caroline Reeves be seen as the leader of the opposition?

When has she voted against the Tory majority.? As chairperson of Guildford Lib Dems, I’m sure Ciaran Doran will have this at his fingertips.

Being a councillor is not just about public honour, it is also about having the brain space to do what is right for the borough and the electorate.

I wait in anticipation of the reply to Mr Heffer to his assertion that Cllr Reeve broke no Nolan principals despite Cllr Reeves’ assertion that he did.

Can Cllr Reeves do the honourable thing and clearly state which one she claims he broke.