Letter: Some Facts About the David Reeve Complaint

Published on: 11 Oct, 2017
Updated on: 11 Oct, 2017

Cllr David Reeve at the complaints hearing.

From Caroline Reeves

Lib Dem borough councillor for Friary & St Nicolas

I would like to put some facts into the public domain regarding the complaint I made about Cllr David Reeve breaking a confidentiality.

My complaint was based on a very simple and easily understood principle; confidentiality. All councillors swear to uphold the Nolan Principles when they are sworn in after election. This oath had been broken.

I firmly believe that in order to effectively perform my duties as a councillor, I and all other councillors must operate under a duty of confidence. If such confidence is broken it hampers the ability of the council to operate, just as it does in any business or organisation.

It now seems, however, that some feel it is acceptable for councillors to breach their duty of confidence. There is no halfway, a confidential item is either confidential or it isn’t. If we breach one area of confidentiality this puts into danger every other area of confidentiality where we do business as councillors and could seriously risk the many areas where we deal with confidential information about individuals in our communities. This is simply not acceptable.

I did not refuse to attend the hearing.

Since it was proving very difficult to find a date for all parties, without making the whole situation go on for even longer than the many months since July 2016, it was agreed that the hearing should go ahead even though I was not in the UK and therefore unable to attend. Cllr Spooner and I were both advised that we were not able to speak.

Cllr David Reeve agrees that the information he released was indeed confidential.

The hearing happened as a last resort. In spite of long private meetings between Cllr Reeve, Cllr Spooner and myself (confidential meetings with an independent facilitator and a legal representative) there was no agreement and so a hearing was the next step in the agreed council procedure, with prescribed sanctions at the end of the hearing. It was only at the hearing that Cllr Reeve agreed that the information was confidential, but suggested that it was de minimus and therefore a technical breach of the Code of Conduct.

We need to draw a line under this and move on. A number of concerns have been raised about the arrangements which were adopted by full council based on the Localism Act 2011, and I support a review by the managing director together with someone from our legal team to identify any improvements that can be made.

Responses to Letter: Some Facts About the David Reeve Complaint

Jules Cranwell Reply

October 11, 2017 at 1:43 pm

Yes we should move on, but we can’t while Cllr. Reeves continues to defend the indefensible. Methinks she doth protest too much.
Lisa Wright Reply

October 11, 2017 at 2:22 pm

Whilst I have seen the webcast from yesterday’s full council meeting and am aware of Cllr Caroline Reeves’ situation, it is nice to read it today in The Dragon.

Whilst the main thread of her complaint against Cllr David Reeve was a broken confidence, I have two questions.

Firstly, who decided that the Experian employment figure was of confidential nature?

Secondly, does she think Cllr Reeve would have been elected to GBC if the general public had real confidence that the then GBC councillors were working for the best of the people?

Personally, I think the whole sorry saga could have been averted if GBC were open and honest about the growth plans for Guildford and the subsequent SHMA [Strategic Housing Market Assessment] document. As Cllr Reeve has now shown, and as many have suspected for so long, the SHMA figure has been manipulated in order for GBC to build thousands of houses that are not locally needed, specifically on large green belt sites.

GBC’s refusal to share these figures, with anyone, GRA, GSoc, parish councils etc, have led to independent consultants being employed to work the figures which concur with my suspicions, and those of others, that the SHMA figures and subsequent OAN [objectively assessed need] are inflated and unconstrained.
- Calum Shaw Reply
  
  October 11, 2017 at 6:24 pm
  
  We locally don’t need more houses? I don’t know if Ms Wright knows anyone trying to get on the housing ladder around here, but I can tell you, there’s a severe shortage.
  - Jim Allen Reply
    
    October 12, 2017 at 12:11 pm
    
    There is a difference between want and need. There is little point in having a “want” (eg to get on the housing ladder) if the cost of “want” exceeds the actual “need” by over eight times annual salary.
    
    A severe shortage implies people sleeping on the streets or are living in shanty towns and slums. This is simply not the case in Guildford. Perhaps if all the foreign investment properties left lying empty in London and the South East were released for use or sale to those in need – the requirement could be met and the want could be satisfied.
  - Lisa Wright Reply
    
    October 13, 2017 at 8:42 pm
    
    Whilst Calum Shaw’s question is slightly off topic, I am happy to say I have two young adults here, I don’t know where they will work or live and we are well aware of housing costs in the area.
    
    However, just because they may want something doesn’t mean they’ll get it and certainly not at the cost of destroying our countryside!
    
    Luckily, they are educated enough and have been taught the benefits of our countryside at an early age, They realise that huge development in Guildford will only bring further problems to their lives such as traffic, air pollution and as recently discovered, a 20 day wait until the next available doctor’s appointment.
David Roberts Reply

October 11, 2017 at 5:21 pm

This whole affair has been an embarrassment for the Lib Dem leader, who wrote early on that she did not have the “brain space” to understand the methodology of David Reeve’s work, and who seems to have allowed herself to be used by the council leader in his action against Cllr David Reeve, in conflict with her role as leader of the opposition.

So of course she now wants to move on. Voters will not forget this episode, however.

Well done, Cllr Liz Hogger, for finally smoothing it all over: it’s good to know there are some Lib Dems with spare brain space around, although I don’t understand why Cllr Colin Cross, who was on the conduct sub-committee, failed to make public his presumed dissent from the majority guilty verdict. Not courageous.

Caroline Reeves is absolutely right that the case was all about breaches of the Nolan Principles, as reflected in the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, in addition to paras 2(1), 2(2) b & d and 4 of the latter. (Click on the pdf here to see what I mean: https://www.guildford.gov.uk/councillorconduct.)

The two complainants, Cllr Spooner and Cllr Reeves, it seems to me, were in breach of all these provisions in pursuing their ridiculous complaint. They have got off lightly not to be the subject of a counter-complaint. But this episode is certain to be remembered and held against them at the next elections.
Ben Paton Reply

October 11, 2017 at 7:46 pm

If anyone wants to listen to the protagonists own version of events they can view them here:
https://youtu.be/gz-ndWGTGgU
The public may form its own view after hearing all three sides.
Valerie Thompson Reply

October 13, 2017 at 8:57 pm

We don’t need a large number of expensive, four- and five-bedroom houses.

We need small, starter homes and downsizer’s homes, but not in the quantity that GBC have proposed. Most of these could be built, as flats, on brownfield sites in central Guildford, where people would have little need for lots of cars.

GBC’s policy of building on the green belt will add hugely to the already overcrowded roads as people try to get to work or take children to school.
Neville Bryan Reply

October 14, 2017 at 9:30 pm

Actually, we already have much of the housing we need but it is occupied by students.

As the university has expanded without meeting its commitment to expand accommodation on the land it owns (expansion it has planning permission for) student demand, and market forces have taken over.

Every small family home coming up for sale will get more return for investors letting it to students than most families can afford. You only have to look at the communities around the university to see the effect when every new house comes up for sale. They are becoming student towns, and others are now increasingly forced to live outside the immediate area which results in more car journeys.

The students don’t seem happy about this either.

Meanwhile, the university is putting forward Blackwell Farm as a big part of the solution, so the university’s reward for breaking their bargain with the people of Guildford is big profits through property development.

The enforcers of planning are Guildford Borough Council the same council which is writing the new Local Plan and the leaders of which have now jumped on a plane to China to make a partnership deal at the apparent suggestion of the university’s vice chancellor.

I might also point out both the university and the council leader (amongst others) sit on the M3/LEP, the government body that hands out large amounts of government infrastructure cash, and who three years ago were suggesting all local authorities needed to raise their build numbers by 25%.