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

Published on: 14 Sep, 2017
Updated on: 16 Sep, 2017

Cllr David Reeve at Monday’s hearing.

By Martin Giles

The complaint against Cllr David Reeve throws light on a far more serious issue than the doubtful standards that seem to operate when it comes to handling complaints of poor councillor conduct at Guildford Borough Council (GBC).

We should all be asking why any secrecy is required when it comes to the calculation of the number of houses needed in our borough? If anything exemplifies the secretive, defensive, bunker mentality that operates at Millmead it is the policy of keeping this from us.

Revelation of the formula used to calculate the housing number is not going to affect security or divulge personal information. GBC is a borough council not the Ministry of Defence.

That such a climate does exist is a conclusion I came to some years ago, as have many others, including some councillors and council officers. A couple of years ago I had a meeting with two other journalists in the outdoor area of the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre, just a stone’s throw from the council offices.

When our conversation came to the council we were in complete agreement that there was a real problem with the council’s culture. Secrecy had become the default position on practically any subject. One councillor was even reprimanded for communicating with The Dragon to encourage public debate on the future of our museum!

What did that say about the council? Couldn’t they see the reputational damage that was being done?

Our conversation must have been conducted at a higher volume than we realised and I noticed another customer reacting. As the person stood up to leave I spotted a GBC staff badge.

The council officer approached. I thought we were going to receive a piece of their mind, and so we did: “I just wanted to say, I am fairly senior at the council and I could not help but hear what you were saying. You are absolutely right, I agree with all you have said!”

Of course, it is insecure individuals and organisations that are often the most secretive and the council’s insecurity over the Local Plan is understandable, parts of it appear to have little visible, popular support and have made some so angry that an unusual amount of energy has been spent campaigning.

In view of the opposition, when consultants were hired to produce reports on the required housing number, it should have been a condition that all workings were included. In fact, why didn’t the government lay down how the calculation should be openly made, so that different plans across the country can be properly compared.

Not doing so has only increased the suspicion that the real reason for secrecy is that it makes challenging the figures more difficult.

It is obvious that there are very strong feelings over the draft Local Plan. The Conservatives, having campaigned at the 2015 election under slogans proclaiming that they were going to protect the green belt, have no clear mandate for the large green belt housing developments proposed. But that makes the need for openness even more important, not less.

And now let us consider the handling of the complaints against Cllr David Reeve. Anyone who has spoken to him at any length cannot help but have been impressed by his courtesy and intelligence. He is obviously a very thoughtful man who exudes integrity. In fact, he is just the kind of person who really deserves our trust as a councillor.

He admitted early on, when the complaints were made, that one single item of data deemed confidential, for commercial reasons, had been used in his analysis of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, a cornerstone of the Local Plan and the housing targets for Guildford.

Emails, disclosed as part of the investigation, seemed to indicate that Satish Mistry the monitoring officer at GBC, at the time, considered a proportionate response was to seek an informal meeting between Cllr Reeve and the complainants, council leader Paul Spooner and Cllr Caroline Reeves, leader of the opposition.

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

But Cllr Spooner was having none of it. The complaints against Reeve were made, it should be remembered, while the complaints against Cllr Marsha Moseley, for comparing the public gallery at a planning committee to a “bloody rabble” were still to be resolved.

Cllr Moseley had not issued a quick apology, which would have nipped the matter in the bud, and so an independent investigation became necessary. The investigator recommended that a public apology be made. Mistry, it was understood at the time, seems to have agreed but, apparently, Cllr Moseley refused.

The stand off was only ended when Mistry was sent on “gardening leave”.

The new monitoring officer, Sandra Herbert, (who did not last too long) quickly agreed that Cllr Moseley need only offer a private, grudging apology to the complainants. Unsurprisingly they did not accept it but a sub-committee of councillors agreed, in private, that no further action was necessary.

Before this outcome was known, while the Moseley / Mistry stand-off continued, Cllr Spooner wrote to Mistry wanting GGG’s Cllr Reeve, who was happy to meet with the complainants informally, to receive similar treatment to his Conservative colleague and also be subjected to an independent investigation. One ensued.

But Cllr Reeve was not only accused of breaching confidentiality he was additionally charged with bringing the council into disrepute and failing to respect others.

What started as rather trivial, ill-considered complaints developed into farce. Of all those at GBC who have brought disrepute to the council, David Reeve is probably one of the least culpable.

When it came to the hearing this week it had some of the trappings of a Stalinist show trial. No accusers present, a sub-committee which included three of the council’s leader’s known allies and an assertion that the public interest defence did not apply.

No wonder veteran borough councillor Angela Gunning, a Labour councillor in favour of the Local Plan proposals, with no axe to grind, said that she left the hearing depressed. The hearing itself was another major blow to the tatters that remain of our borough council’s reputation, so badly affected over the Monika Juneja affair in 2015.

So what is to be done? There is a newish managing director at GBC, James Whiteman, who looked suitably serious throughout Monday’s whole sorry affair. No wonder. The antics of some of the councillors, including slurs made in the chamber, are affecting the reputation of the whole council. It is time they stopped.

The rank and file of the Tory group should, at last, show some responsibility. If they share any concern they must stand up and be counted.

The opposition, who represent more than 50% of those who voted in 2015, should act as a real opposition. Some of them might agree with the draft Local Plan but they should still be scrutinising all aspects of the council’s conduct as well as their policies.

And the rest of us must pay attention, make our views known, demand high standards and vote with more knowledge of the issues in elections. Some of us might find local politics boring and currently unedifying but there is a lot at stake.

We all need our democratic institutions to work properly at borough level just as much as any other but in the end, we only get the quality of government we deserve.

See also: Councillor Rejects Complaint Hearing Findings, Saying: ‘I Have No Regrets’

Share This Post