Council refuses to release report on ‘conduct breaches’
PUBLISHING INVESTIGATION INTO THE FORMER COUNCIL LEADER ‘WOULD DISCOURAGE OTHERS FROM COOPERATING’
A COUNCIL has refused a request to release a report into its former leader who was rapped for several serious breaches of conduct.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) asked Redcar and Cleveland Council for a copy of the report that was produced after an investigation was commissioned into Mary Lanigan and events surrounding her which prompted complaints from members of the public.
The LDRS argued in a Freedom of Information request that there was a strong public interest in fully establishing the actions of a democratically elected leader and, at the very least, a redacted version of the report blurring out the names of those not central to proceedings should be made available.
But the council rejected the application, claiming to release the report could prejudice the exercise of its functions in relation to councillors’ conduct and this outweighed any public interest in disclosure.
Mrs Lanigan, who was censured by council members for her behaviour during a long-running row which centred on the war memorial in Easington, East Cleveland, where she lives, told the LDRS she believed the report should be released.
A panel had found her responsible for breaches of the council’s code of conduct, which would both reduce the public’s confidence in her ability to fulfil her duties as a councillor and adversely affect the reputation of members of the council generally.
It found she had failed to treat others with respect, attempted to use her position improperly to secure for herself or another person an advantage, had conducted herself in a manner contrary to the council’s duty to promote high standards of conduct among elected members, and had effectively brought her office and the council into disrepute.
Despite calls to quit, Mrs Lanigan ploughed on, seeking re-election in her Loftus ward on May 5.
But the veteran councillor, a former nurse who has spent the last four years leading an independent/Liberal Democrat coalition in charge of the local authority, failed to secure enough votes to take one of the three seats available and was pipped by Labour candidate Linda White.
In the wake of her defeat Mrs Lanigan acknowledged she had been upset and angry during the “unfortunate” events in Easington and said she had overreacted, losing her temper.
The council had commissioned a private firm, Kenyon Brabook, to undertake an investigation into complaints by Easington residents Lisa Miller and her neighbour Shlomit Lowe, which gathered evidence from more than 20 individuals and also examined council documents and police interviews.
It resulted in a report running to about 30 pages which made various findings of fact, which were considered by a hearing panel, which met in private, partly at the request of Cleveland Police who considered that the investigator’s report “concerned certain information which ordinarily would be privileged or protected from disclosure”.
Speaking to the LDRS earlier this year Mrs Miller, whose husband Shaun was attacked by Mrs Lanigan’s husband Mike, resulting in a conviction for the latter, claimed there was a “story on every page”. But only a summary was published online by the council, along with the findings of the panel.
The council said in its FOI response that there is “clearly a strong public interest in protecting our ability as a public authority to enforce the law by ensuring that allegations about councillors’ conduct are investigated and decisions in relation to those allegations can be taken”.
It said: “The council was able to have this matter investigated because individuals were willing to come forward voluntarily as witnesses providing relevant information. Disclosing the report in full would naturally discourage others from co-operating with council investigations of this nature and voluntarily supplying relevant information in future.
“It would also discourage the open and frank exchange of information by prospective witnesses, without fear that such information is placed in the public domain. If evidence provided by witnesses (both residents and council officers) for the purposes of the investigation is made public then this might deter prospective witnesses to provide evidence for similar investigations in future, which would impede the council’s ability to properly investigate and make decisions on councillors’ conduct.”
The council added a summary of the investigation had already been published online.
Mrs Lanigan’s likely successor as council leader, Labour group leader Alec Brown, said he would have no issue with the report being disclosed in order to provide full transparency.
He said: “Scrutiny of public officials is very much in the public interest in my opinion and I would be an advocate for it [the report] to be published.”
A spokesman for the council added: “The report involves information relating to a significant number of witnesses and other individuals in addition to the councillor who was the subject of the investigation. The public interest in releasing the report needs to be carefully balanced against the need to ensure that individuals who might be potential witnesses in any future investigations feel assured that they can co-operate with internal procedures in confidence.
“The decision not to release the report was based on advice from our data protection officer and takes account of the fact that the most significant element of public interest in this matter has been discharged by publication of the findings of the investigation within the hearings panel’s decision notice, which has also been the subject of a formal debate and resulted in a formal censure being issued within a public meeting of the full borough council.”