Leader admits breaching council's code of conduct

The leader of Rochdale council has admitted today, (17 December 2018) that he brought the authority into disrepute over comments about withholding highways funding from non-Labour voting areas.

Allen Brett has been disciplined at an audit and governance sub-committee over the remarks, which were said to have been ‘banter’ and ‘taken out of context.’

The committee found he had breached the code of conduct but heard he had made unreserved apologies.

Sanctions will require the leader to undertake further training relating to the code of conduct and the committee panel will publish its findings on the matter.

Councillor Peter Malcolm, who chaired the meeting, said the committee had found Councillor Brett in breach of paragraph five of the council's code of conduct.

He said: “The sub-committee notes the subject member referred himself to the monitoring officer at the outset and made an unreserved apology when the investigating officer published his report and has again, through his solicitor, reiterated that apology.

“However, the sub-committee finds that Councillor Brett’s conduct fell below that of a member in his position.”

The comments, which were recorded at a Labour group meeting ahead of April’s local elections, sparked fury after an audio recording of them was leaked to Rochdale Online.

Audio Clip

However, an independent investigation found there was no evidence Councillor Brett had attempted, or planned, to manipulate highways funding – and that checks and balances in the process ensured it could not happen without ‘standing out like a sore thumb’.

It was also found the leader had not lied to the press.

Councillor Brett accepted the investigation’s finding that he had brought the council into disrepute, despite maintaining the comments were in jest and taken out of context.

The council leader, who was represented by solicitor Paul Dixon, insisted his comments were not to be taken seriously, and that he believed he was in a private political meeting as a Labour Party member, rather than in his official capacity of council leader.

The investigation into Councillor Brett’s conduct was carried out by Simon Goacher, of Weightmans solicitors.

Councillor Malcolm questioned Mr Goacher on whether Councillor Brett could be deemed to have been on official council duty at a Labour group meeting, noting ‘the case stands or falls on this’.

Referring to case law, Mr Goacher said it was similar to when a councillor uses social media, where the content of their posts dictates whether they are acting in an official or personal capacity.

He said if a councillor was discussing matters relating to national or regional politics, they would likely not be acting in an official capacity.

However, he added: “But if you have got the leader of the council, or the leader of an opposition group explaining council business, being there for the purpose of talking about a council policy and explaining how it will operate, in my view they are clearly acting in their capacity as a councillor in doing that.”

Councillor Malcolm questioned whether Councillor Brett believed he could be acting in an official capacity – making reference to the leader’s leaked remark ‘that he was ‘reluctant’ to make the comment even within the confines of the meeting.

But Mr Dixon said that Councillor Brett was always of the understanding it was a private meeting.

He said: “The remarks were banter and you would have had to have been in the room to understand the tone and context they were made.

“The unfortunate thing here is we have a a very brief recording of one part of a meeting. We don’t know what’s been said before – how much humour, how much laughing and joking has gone on.”

In further defence of the leader, Mr Dixon said Councillor Brett had acted with ‘integrity’ throughout and the allegations that he had sought to manipulate funding for political purposes and lied to the press had been found to be ‘simply not true’.

He said: “A number of the players in this political drama are not here today or not identified. One can only draw their own inferences from that.

“The two most serious complaints have both been dismissed by Mr Goater after a very thorough and serious investigation.

“Councillor Brett took the decision at the outset to refer himself to the committee and then when the draft report was published his immediate reaction was to offer a full and unreserved apology for incautious remarks intended to be banter which, taken out of context, could – and perhaps in one or two circumstances - did cause distress to members of the public.”

Following the meeting, Councillor Brett said in a statement: “I have said many times that my comments were not meant to be taken seriously and this process has finally concluded there was no way I could have influenced where our record road investment should be allocated.

“I now want to put this behind me and get on with the job of transforming our borough, which we are very much doing.

“I also want to look at ways of increasing our road repair programme even further because I know it’s something many of our residents want us to do.”

As a result of the hearing, a recommendation has been made that all councillors undertake further training on the code of conduct.

Nick Statham, Local Democracy Reporter