(I tried to put this up yesterday but had some technical problems and so apologists to the keen Skidderistas who couldn't access it.)
(Don't forget the adjournment debate on stinking Sandwell Council live from the House of Commons at 5pm TODAY - 25th January,2018.)
The hot-shot and very expensive "prosecuting" barrister up from London stated publicly that he would be formally objecting to this statement being put in evidence. Regretably, we didn't get to that as Jonesy (represented by Unite the Union) decided enough was enough of the ludicrous kangaroo court and walked out before I was due to be called.
When you read the statement you will understand why Leader [sic] Steve "The Milkman" Eling (pictured below) and Jan Britton were so anxious not to have it placed "in the public domain." But now it is. Enjoy!
In The Matter Of:
JPS/First
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
V
Councillor Ian Jones
………………………………………………………………
Witness Statement of Julian Saunders
……………………………………………………………..
I, Julian Saunders, of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx will say:
1 Since 19/11/13 I
have been the principal author of The Sandwell Skidder blog published at
thesandwellskidder.blogspot.com. The subject of the blog is the corruption,
cronyism and incompetence widespread throughout SMBC during the tenure of Mr
Jan Britton as Chief Executive together with reports of the poor behaviour of a
number of Councillors.
2 I have made, and
continue to make, repeated reports to West Midlands Police concerning a number
of issues that have arisen. I was interviewed as a witness in respect of the
main fraud “investigation” and there are certain matters still ongoing. I have
made occasional complaints to the Council’s auditors, KPMG. Any reference below
to Councillor Jones means Councillor Ian Jones unless otherwise stated.
3 After training and
what was then called “articles of clerkship” I worked as a solicitor for 18
years. I am concerned that the audit and standards processes at SMBC are
currently being “gamed” by certain individuals purely for party political
reasons and also that important evidence is being deliberately concealed from
the so-called “independent person.” There is also a gross disparity of legal
representation between SMBC and the accused. At the recent hearing involving
Cllr Hussain there was a QC, two other barristers and at least two qualified
solicitors lined up against him (although he chose not to attend.) In the first
proposed hearing involving Cllr Jones he was initially refused an adjournment
as he was trying to find legal representation and this was only granted after a
lengthy hearing with lawyers present at incredible cost to the taxpayer when
two barristers and at least two qualified solicitors were lined up against him
and he was faced with a “bundle” of evidence several hundred pages thick. This
should offend anyone’s sense of justice and it certainly does mine.
4 Myself (and my
wife) have directly suffered thanks to the actions of Councillor Mahboob
Hussain and members of his family. My legal training instilled in me the
principle that everyone deserves a fair trial whatever they are accused of and
they are “innocent until proven guilty.” And so even with him, and not without
considerable personal reservations, I have been in communication with his
lawyers to provide certain evidence related to the witch hunt against him and I
attempted to submit evidence to the Monitoring Officer and to SMBC Solicitor
Maria Price concerning his standards hearing. It is his own fault that he did
not contest the hearing (although I understand that he does genuinely have some
health issues at present) but that does not mean that the evidence of the likes
of Mr David Willetts should simply go unchallenged and be accepted by the
panel. Willetts is a proven liar eg his false response to a statutory Freedom
of Information request concerning the identity of the purchaser of three toilet
blocks where some considerable time after the event he still sought to conceal
the truth. Incidentally I believe that there was a suggestion by Labour
Councillors that Willetts should suffer clawback of his pension in respect of
losses incurred by SMBC due to his conduct in various matters and so, on legal
advice, he declined to attend the Audit Committee following an invitation from
them. It was not made clear to the Independent Person or to the public whether
this threat was dropped before he gave evidence against Cllr Hussain a couple
of weeks ago. He also made a number of errors in his evidence which SMBC staff
including a solicitor and the Monitoring Officer should have known to be false.
Neither did any of the SMBC staff present at the hearing correct the constantly
made but false assertion throughout the hearing that SMBC had only received one
offer letter whereas in my blog of 25/08/17 “Another Bog-gate Mystery” it is
clear that there were two letters with different signatures.
5 Certain Councillors
are trying to smear me by saying openly that I am now, somehow, in the Hussain
and Ian Jones “camp”. Really this is so ridiculous as not really worth the
merit of comment but as it is being made even by senior Cabinet members such as
Cllr Paul Moore I need to address it. With regard to Hussain, I am only
communicating with his lawyers. For what it is worth, I agree that he was in breach
of standards with regard to the sale of the public conveniences but much
evidence was concealed (possibly deliberately) and many questions remain to be
answered from that sad affair. To this day I am still trying to get West
Midlands Police to reopen their enquiries into his and his family’s activities
and am currently submitted further evidence to them (some of which became
apparent from the recent standards hearing) and so I cannot see for the life of
me how that equates with “being on his side.”
6 The situation with
Cllr Ian Jones is slightly more nuanced. He was not really “on the radar” in
the early days of my blog which was primarily involved with the corruption,
misconduct of councillors and downright lying of SMBC councillors and employees
surrounding the corrupt deal to transfer The Public building (where my wife
worked) to Sandwell College. The main protagonists were Cllrs Cooper, Hussain
and, as the truth gradually emerged, Eling.
7 The blog at this
stage was a “personal” affair. I was so enraged by the lies being told about
The Public deal I just felt that I needed to get things off my chest. But then
members of the public and even some employees began to contact me about other
issues. This began to pique my innate curiosity. Then Ex-Councillor Mick
Davies, a very close personal friend of Audit Committee member Cllr Bob Piper,
handed me a photocopy of a SMBC internal document showing the price that three
toilet blocks were sold for to a member of Cllr Hussain’s extended family and
the rest, as they say is history. Over the years the blog - all produced in my
own time and at my own expense (which has been considerable) - has grown and covered many issues of
concern to the general public. Throughout this period Jan Britton has attempted
to thwart my investigations mostly by keeping huge amounts of information
secret from the public. But he has also caused and/or permitted his staff to
ignore me, mislead me and deliberately lie to me eg Mr David Willetts who, as
above, lied in a Freedom of Information response concerning the sale of the
toilets. In an effort to silence the blog completely, Britton even caused
and/or permitted employee Jane Perham to send two letters to my wife’s then
employers trying to get her sacked from her job.
8 In due course I
went onto local radio - BBCWM - to discuss the lavatories and Cllr Ian Jones
was put up to “oppose” me. I had not, hitherto, had any dealings with him. In
the interview he made an extraordinary comment that the valuation of the blocks
by the District Valuer had been done after the valuation. For some considerable
time thereafter I repeatedly used the blog to call Cllr Jones a “liar” with
regard to this - and the statement was, indeed, untrue. However, relatively
recently, I was handed a copy of the actual press briefing that Jones had been
given and he was actively mislead by Jan Britton’s staff. I am told that the
false document was prepared by Mr Willetts but that is hearsay evidence only
although SMBC would know, of course. This led me to publish a partial apology
to Cllr Jones in the blog on 25th August, 2017 entitled “Another Bog-gate
Mystery!”
9 It has not yet been
concluded but I ran a very forthright campaign against Cllr Ian Jones, Cllr
Olwen Jones and Cllr Elaine Costigan in respect of their involvement in an
organisation called “Wednesbury Celebrates” which included sending detailed
allegations to West Midlands Police and KPMG. To say, therefore, that I am
somehow biased in favour of Jones is simply ludicrous. Apparently, the fact that
I was seen having a drink with him after the last Council meeting is the
“evidence” of bias which, again, is a really pathetic smear.
10 It is impossible
to consider the fraud and corruption during Jan Britton’s tenure without
considering Darren Cooper. He was a monster and I appear to be the only person
around who was not scared of him. There is no Councillor, including those on
the Standards Committee who were around at the time who were not scared of him.
That went for employees too. Some Councillors were actually physically
intimidated by him. Employees report him shouting and repeated banging his
massive fists on the table at meetings. But even those who were not scared that
he would physically harm them knew that if they crossed him he would destroy
them. Politically, Councillors had seen what happened with Councillors Mick
Davies and Jayne Wilkinson. Councillors were (and still are) repeatedly
threatened with deselection if they fail to obey the Leader (first Cooper and
now Eling.) The vast majority of Councillors were given “special responsibility
payments” on top of their basic allowances and this seemingly bought their
total loyalty (at the end if the 2014 financial year only six Labour
Councillors did not receive such payments.) Employees who didn’t fit in were
fired by Jan Britton (though made to sign confidentiality contracts in return
for huge sums of public money.) Even senior employees who refused to do
Cooper’s bidding were axed by Jan Britton including Stuart Kellas and John
Garrett. Cllr Bob Piper - who claims he is left-wing and and ex-trade union rep
but who raised no objection to this conduct - wrote to me “If they ever had a
clue, they made them redundant!” In my case he tried every trick in the book to
silence the blog including a massive social media trolling campaign of the most
vile kind against myself and my wife, false accusations to the police and so
on. It is said here that Cllr Ian Jones in this matter passed on an order from
Cooper to staff. There was no Councillor during Cooper’s depraved leadership
who can say, hand on heart, that they would have refused to do this. The whole
lot were scared of him. That is the way it was. His level of complete control
is amply shown by the saga of his visit for a police interview at Steelhouse
Lane Police Station in Birmingham. Cooper faced interview under caution
specifically in relation to a personal matter relating to the harassment of a
woman. It was nothing at all to do with SMBC but Jan Britton, or his very
senior staff with his knowledge, arranged for Councillor Solicitor Maria Price
to represent him there. Mr Britton asks us to believe that this was not a cost
to the taxpayer since, by happy coincidence, Ms Price just happened to have a
day’s holiday booked for that very day and selflessly gave it up to assist
“Darren.” Britton then arranged for the Council’s chauffeur to use the
limousine to take Cooper and Ms Price to and from the personal interview -
which was a cost to the public purse. It is also noteworthy that there were
hardly any whistleblowing disclosures by staff during the Cooper/Britton regime
as staff knew the disastrous consequences if they dared to speak out.
11 I first became
aware of the house deal involving Councillor Rouf or his family via a report
from a member of the local Muslim community. Virtually all the information I
have been given has been handed to West Midlands Police. It is a matter of
considerable concern that Jan Britton did not refer this matter to the Wragge
investigation. This was deliberate and, one may surmise, on the direct orders
of Cllr Cooper. The fact is that this bent deal had been in the public domain
for some considerable time. My first blog on the subject - “Forget The Bedroom
Tax - It’s Seven-Bedroom Heaven For Some in Sandwell” appearing on 26th
September, 2014. This was shortly followed on 4th November, 2014 by a post,
“Now What’s Cllr Rouf Up To?” As more information became available more posts
followed: “Sandwell Labour’s Rouf on Skid Row” (11/11/14); “Cllr Rouf -
Unemployed My Arse! Another Labour Liar!” (13/11/14); and “Cllr Mohammad Rouf -
An Oasis at The Midnight” (17/02/15). Thus there had been five blogs voicing
major concerns about numerous aspects of this deal in the public domain before
Jan Britton formed the terms of reference to his friends at Wragge and Co in
March/April, 2015 and yet he excluded this issue.
12 Two further blogs
followed - one before the Wragge investigation was concluded but Britton still
failed to act. On 21/09/15 I published “Rouf House - SMBC Sale Price!” and on
30/01/17 I published “Cllr Rouf is STILL protected!”
13 There are certain
matters related to this affair that still require proper investigation by West
Midlands Police or, better still, by an independent police force. I only have
very limited investigative powers but they could and should have got to the
bottom of all this. The fact is that Rouf signed false declarations to his
Register of Interest entries. Like another Councillor who had been given
council housing in highly dubious circumstances, Cllr Rouf attempted to conceal
the fact by stating that he owned the SMBC house in which he was then living.
It was only via information from the local Muslim community that I had cause to
do a Land Registry search and establish the truth. At the material time, Rouf
was still working as a taxi driver and had sold his own unmortgaged property
for £125,000. He also had an interest in residential property in Shirelands
Road, Smethwick and yet he was awarded a Council house. That is fact but
hearsay evidence from the local Muslim community was also that the building of
the house in Florence Road had been planned for a long time before it happened.
The house sale was so that he had the money to buy the plot cheaply from SMBC
and start the build. Sandwell Council facilitated this by giving him the
Council house for the duration of the project.
14 West Midlands
Police were fully aware of the issues regarding the false declarations (which
involved other councillors as well) but failed to take any action before the 12
month limitation period for commencing prosecutions expired. Cllr Steve Eling
wrote to me via his personal email account: “They [ie West Midlands Police]
failed to bring any charges within the time limit and consequently the
allegations fell. The idiots!” Neither Jan Britton nor any Monitoring Officer
has raised any standards complaint with regard to the false declarations.
15 During the course
of the Rouf saga - and despite a number of threats of extreme violence via
anonymous telephone calls - I visited Smethwick on a number of occasions and
met with people who lived near the plot and also some of the other would-be
purchasers. One family of local business people (hereinafter “the family”) who
easily had the wherewithal to buy the site had been very interested indeed but
had been constantly “fobbed-off” by SMBC employees - often in respect of “the
substation” excuse (see further below.) I offered to broker a meeting between
them and West Midlands Police but the latter did not take that up.
16 Sandwell Council
bought-up the terraced houses on the plot for a sum in excess of £200,000. They
then used taxpayers’ money to demolish the houses leaving a large clear plot,
surrounded by small terraced houses, save for a small electrical substation right
at the front of the plot. We only now know from the papers in this hearing that
Sandwell Council were already in negotiation with one of Cllr Rouf’s sons but
that, in the meantime, the property was listed for auction. Various locals were
interested in the plot but, as we know now, Darren Cooper - a close personal
friend of Cllr Rouf - ordered that the auction be stopped because there was an
existing prospective purchaser. Interested locals, including,significantly,
“the family” - made phone calls to SMBC but all say that they were told the
property had been removed from auction because of problems in moving the
electrical substation. It is clear that staff were routinely lying to local
residents and the question is why, if they were not directly involved in a
fraudulent conspiracy (which I say they were as with other matters). As a
matter of fact, the substation was easily dealt with once the land had been
sold to another of Rouf’s sons at a price massively below what SMBC paid for
the site. Sandwell Council kindly provided free land within their car park just
over the way and Western Power paid for the equipment to be moved. The alleged
problems of moving it were a lie perpetuated by Jan Britton’s corrupt paid
service.
17 Local residents
insist that they knew nothing about was going on from then on. We now know,
that for reasons unknown, the one son of Cllr Rouf did not complete the
purchase following Darren Cooper’s intervention. The specific plot, with
others, was then included by officers in a scheme to include small-scale
new-build housing by individuals and their recommendation came before the Asset
Management and Land Disposal (AMLD) Committee on 27th October, 2011 chaired by
Cllr Rouf’s distant relative, Cllr Mahboob Hussain, and also attended by Cllrs
Steve Eling and Jones. It is very important to note that Jan Britton’s staff
had redacted details of the actual plots so that there is no way interested
local residents could have known that the Rouf plot was included in the scheme.
Cllrs Hussain, Eling and Jones considered best value and, in the absence of any
evidence of fraud, lawfully decided that best value could be achieved by
accepting sealed bids on the plot and not putting the property back into
auction. This decision was approved and endorsed by the full Council on 29th
November, 2011 including by three of the Councillors sitting on the Committee
dealing with this matter ie Cllrs Lewis, Shackleton and Trow (see further
below.)
18 The new scheme
involved interesting parties paying £75 to enter the bidding process and then
sealed bids being considered. My understanding is that the internal SMBC
auditors and Wragges suggest that the sealed bid process was robust and fair
but that it is specifically not the hearsay evidence of Council “employees”
nor, indeed, of the current Leader of the Council. Persons purporting to be
anonymous employees have said that in other cases low-ball offers were put in
by associates of the would-be purchaser and information of the highest bid
leaked to individuals so that they could choose whether or not to enter the
highest offer. We will come to “The Eling/Marshall Files” in due course but
suffice to say here that Cllrs Eling and Marshall fed me a substantial
information of information - including confidential information - in an effort
to destroy Cllrs Hussain and Jones and they made specific comment about the
deal whereby a substantial plot of land in Oldbury was sold to Council
Hussain’s son (another bent deal which featured activity by David Willetts).
Here is what they said about that and about Rouf’s plot: “MH [Cllr Mahboob
Hussain] “house/land” deal was rigged [it transpired they were talking about
the Lodge Street deal]. Council received 4 bids, his was indeed the highest but
the of 3 [sic] were it has become apparent off his family members. Roufs is now
also being looked at as it also looking fishy.”
19 In a Freedom of
Information response from David Willetts (and we have seen above that he has
lied about property matters), he claimed the plot was “marketed” for “4-5”
weeks though he provided no details. The locals tell me they knew nothing about
SMBC re-offering the plot to the public and that many of them would have been
interested. In particular, “the family” said they would have definitely paid £75
and bid had they known anything about it. SMBC say publicly that they only
received three bids and one bidder had not paid the fee so that only two bids
were considered. Given the people I have spoken to about the plot this seems
absolutely incredible as does the fact that the winning offer of just £65,000
happened to come from another of Rouf’s son. The police need to properly
investigate all this.
20 For the sake of
completeness Rouf’s son applied for planning permission for an enormous
seven-bedroom house looming over and completely out of character with the
terraced street and groves. This was quickly nodded through. But locals
including those in the row of terraced houses immediately adjacent to the house
say that no planning notices went up about the application and that they would
have objected. They say the first they knew on this monstrosity on their
doorstep was when building started and they did not even know the land had even
been sold. They complained to John Spellar MP who wrote to Jan Britton. Britton
fobbed him off and so the residents collectively invited me to see them. I
started to put in FOI requests etc and the responses were substantially delayed
and, in my opinion, deliberately opaque. There was every opportunity at this
stage for Jan Britton to refer the matter to the Police and to halt the
construction but he claimed that as a legal contract had been entered into his
hands were tied. But the contract would not have been legal if fraud was
established. Finally on the facts of this, Cllr Rouf told me to my face in the
chemist shop where he works that he would not be moving into the house himself.
This was, of course, a lie as he moved straight in upon completion.
21 With all of the
above to consider it is really scraping the barrel for the pro-Eling Audit
Committee to deliberately single out a small incident involving Cllr Jones to
try and harm him with a standards investigation particularly as he lawfully
considered best value for this plot at the AMLD meeting in October, 2011 and
that the land sold for £65,000 when officers had put an auction reserve of
£45,000 on it (although the public still do not know how this figure was
arrived at or whether Mr Willetts sought a professional valuation of the plot.)
The fact is that the allegation, such as it is, is politically motivated.
Incidentally, officers of the Council published a guide price via the
auctioneers of £34,000 to £38,000. It is the industry wide auctioneering
practice not to set the reserve price at more than 10% above the top guide
price - in this case £41,800 - yet here officers set the reserve at £45,000
which was potentially illegal pursuant to the Consumer Protection Regulation
2008.
22 In his recent
evidence at the standards hearing for Cllr Hussain, Mr Dave Willetts did get
one thing right when he described the culture prevalent at the beginning of the
Cooper/Britton era. Up until the 2008 crash Willetts says SMBC were raking in
the money with land sales. The following depression played havoc with that and
Willetts stated that auctions had become very unpredictable (and do, of course,
cost fees to use.) Willetts explained that from 2009 to around 2011 then Deputy
Leader Steve Eling had reduced the target for capital receipts and actively
discouraged sales by auction during this period. But Cooper (always the puppet
of Cllr Hussain) declared the Council “open for business” and this became a
mantra. Councillors were going to rule the roost and employees had better get
used to it and do their bidding. We have heard of many cases thereafter of
Councillors bullying staff with no objection from the Chief Executive and this
Committee heard graphic evidence from Mr Willetts about his own situation
during the sale of the toilets and the intimidation he claims he was under (though
as above, he does have a record of failing to tell the truth.) Also his
previous statements - one to internal audit and two to the Wragge investigation
- were not made available to the Independent Person to compare and contrast in
the Hussain case.
23 Although Cllr Cooper was nominally employed
elsewhere he spent a great deal of time at The Council House as did Cllr
Hussain. Cllr Jones was still employed by Walsall Council and, as I understand
it, worked just one day a week at SMBC. Cooper and Hussain were in total
command with a weak and ineffectual Chief Executive prepared to do their
bidding. As above, Cllr Cooper was close to Rouf and relied on him and Cllr
Zahoor Ahmed to “deliver” the substantial local Muslim vote for Labour. It is
highly probable that he knew the plot was going to Rouf’s family but SMBC, in
this investigative process, have found that Cllr Jones did not know this at any
time. It was Cooper who ordered the auction to be stopped and he most probably
had fraudulent intent. Jones merely passed the message on and had no more part
in the matter until the AMLD Committee meeting.
24 Council officers
had provided and auction estimate of £34,000 to £38,000 and placed a reserve of
£45,000 on the plot. Of course, it is possible that could have been changed at
any time before the auction up or down. It is equally possible, particularly
noting Mr Willetts’s comments on the vagaries of auctions at that time, that
the reserve was not met and the property not sold. Although Cllr Jones had no
part in the negotiations the SMBC staff offered the sale at £45,000. Leaving
aside the question of fraud this would have meant SMBC getting the money it
wanted (the reserve price) but without the deduction of the auctioneer’s
commission. It is noteworthy that it was officers of the Council who decided
not to recommend that the plot went back into auction when the deal to one of
Rouf’s sons mysteriously fell through but decided to recommend sale by sealed
bids via the “new” process. Again, leaving aside the question of fraud, Cllr
Jones was one of three councillors to approve this in committee including both
Deputy Leaders. This was approved by the full council including three members
of this Committee and resulted in SMBC selling the plot for £20,000 more than officers
had originally agreed via the reserve price. Even if, which is disputed, Cllr
Jones should have considered best value in February, 2011 he did so in October,
2011 for the self same plot and, with others, achieved a substantially better
result in any event.
25 In 2016 I met with
Cllrs Eling and Marshall by prior arrangement in a Birmingham pub. The vicious
social media trolling of myself and my wife had ended the very same night that
Darren Cooper died. Eling was emollient - claiming that he was disgusted at
what I had endured. He was going to tackle corruption and “drain the swamp”. I
expressed scepticism as he had been directly involved in “signing off” most of
the bent deals I was writing about. No Councillors including the powerful Eling
had made any complaint to Cooper about his trolling for fear of the backlash. I
was particularly exercised with Eling’s very direct and intimate involvement is
a very large corrupt deal to bring an ice rink to West Bromwich. Cllr Eling
assured me that mistakes had been made and that everything would change. He
would even review the position of the Chief Executive whom we referred to that
night and later as “the turd in the pool”. I was assured that the ice rink deal
would not be going ahead and that an announcement would be made “within a few
weeks” (which it was). I said that I was regularly attacking the conduct of
Cllrs Hussain and Jones and so it was no skin off my nose to continue to do so.
I would not agree to staying quiet if he and his “side” were guilty of
wrongdoing but said I would sit on my hands for a bit and give them an easy
ride whilst things panned out. They agreed to furnish me with “bullets to fire”
against Cllrs Hussain and Jones and to that end, shortly afterwards, Marshall
set up a Whats App account to send me messages and Eling occasionally contacted
me via his personal email account.
26 Following threats
and other misconduct by Cllrs Eling and Marshall I disclosed a redacted version
of most of their messages to me. The two Cllrs told people the information was
fake and so on 5th November, 2017 I put up (subject to a few redactions) a
complete download of the messages in a blog called “Steve Eling - You Are a
F*cking Liar!”. I have not yet disclosed emails but am referring to them in
various blog stories. The download is replete with attacks on fellow
councillors and employees, disgusting obscenity about female employees and
release of confidential information. At one point it is clear that they or SMBC
employees acting on their behalf illegally obtained information from the
Department of Work and Pensions. There are numerous attacks on Cllr Mahboob
Hussain but you will see that a very substantial part of the download is
devoted to attacks on Councillor Jones and his family. It is a campaign bordering
on obsession and on an industrial scale. (I have something else to say on this
but due to its personal nature am only prepared to do so in camera.)
27 Interestingly the
feed shows that Eling and Marshall were not really interested in Cllr Jones in
respect of the Rouf plot since everyone knew he was nothing really to do with
it. You will see, however, that Cllr Marshall, was concerned that Cllr Rouf and
Cllr Ahmed were stirring up local Labour activists against him and he feared
deselection. This caused Eling and Marshall (presumably through Jan Britton) to
get SMBC employees trawling files for evidence against them (including trying
to unlawfully secure information from Birmingham City Council taxi licensing
department.) They were desperate for their supporters on the then Audit
Committee to make a splash on 26th January, 2017 and Eling and Marshall wrote
to me on that date and several hours before the meeting took place at 18.00:
“Interestingly [sic] about Rouf house being pulled out of the auction by Jones”
but then they realise that this is an irrelevance and go on: “no-one is asking
if Rouf knew about it as he was the only one going for it. And that it’s now
proven that officers grossly undervalued other sites and properties isn’t fair
to assume Rouf paid way below the market value too?” They asked me to keep this
secret until after the meeting of the Audit Committee took place.
28 I know that a
number of Councillor Eling’s faction were disappointed that some of my
disclosures had not been investigated and they too were desperate to destroy
Cllrs Hussain and Jones. Thus on 26th January, 2017 Cllr Bob Piper contacted me
and asked me if I would give live evidence to the Audit Committee upon which he
sits. When I agreed he wrote to me: “You’ll get an invite. I want to ask
whether there are other issues you think the officers have not investigated but
you will get a pretty free reign [sic] - I suspect the Jones’ will go
ballistic.” Clearly the Audit Committee was also developing an anti-Jones agenda.
29 There need to be
major investigations into Cllr Rouf by the police and an independent person
but, of course, there hasn’t been. The clue to the reason why not is what Eling
and Marshall said on April Fools’ Day, 2017 when Marshall reported: “Rouf and
Zahoor have asked to come and see me this wk as they ‘want to tell me
everything that’s been going on’” In other words, the two Councillors had
agreed to join the Eling sect and so Eling and Marshall dropped all
investigations against them.
30 In the light of
the blatant witch hunt against Jones on a wafer-thin allegation I offered to
give evidence at this standards hearing. I wrote to all four Councillors on the
standards committee panel asking if they voted for Cllr Eling in his initial
(disputed) election for leader but they failed to reply. On 29th November, 2017
I wrote to Jan Britton and the Deputy Monitoring Officer asking to give
evidence at the hearing to assist the Committee. Cllr Jones replied that he was
seeking an adjournment to obtain legal representation but that he intended to
call me as a witness. On 30th November, 2017 Mr Surjit Tour, Monitoring Officer
refused my request on the basis that I had not been called by a member even
though I am told that, by then, he was very well aware that Cllr Jones had said
he wanted to call me (although he was still seeking an adjournment.) I duly
attended the hearing where the Chair, Cllr Lewis, refused to allow me to pass
messages to assist the unrepresented Cllr Jones.
31 On 20th December,
2017 I wrote to The Monitoring Officer, Solicitor Maria Price and the four
members of the Committee on a point of law. By this time it was clear that I
would be a witness. I asked whether the leader and cabinet structure of SMBC
and its constitution at the material time specifically overruled s.15 of the
Local Government Act 2000 and, if so, where I would find the documentation
relating to that. I referred specifically to s.15 (9) which clearly gave Darren
Cooper the legal power to overrule any delegated officer exercising delegated
functions. Arguably, as a cabinet executive, Cllr Jones had the same power. The
point being that, in the absence of fraud, Leader Cooper was entitled by law to
overrule the decision of an officer made under delegated powers. I think Cooper
was acting fraudulently but that is not really the point here since it is
common ground that Cllr Jones was not acting fraudulently in any way in respect
of this land sale and nor did he know what Cooper was up to. The sole
allegation is that he passed on Cooper’s instruction when he should have
considered best value at that point and at least considered whether it was
appropriate or not to overrule officers. But if Darren Cooper had already made
that decision lawfully pursuant to LGA 2000 then there was nothing for Cllr
Jones to consider. He was simply the conduit for a lawful instruction from the
Leader. Alternatively, s.15(9) appears to also give Cllr Jones the exact same
power. As it is accepted that Cllr Jones was not acting fraudulently then the Standards
Committee need to show that his actions were in some other way unlawful which
they were not. In the premises, if Cllr Jones was acting lawfully he cannot be
in breach of standards. I make this statement on 21st January, 2018 and I have
not had the courtesy of a response. I understand that Cllr Jones hasn’t either.
In any event Cllr Jones understood that SMBC had an offer in the exact same sum
as the reserve price. When things went wrong with that he, with others,
properly and lawfully considered the question of best value in Committee at the
first opportunity.
32 Also on 20th
December, 2017 I made a standards complaint against three of the four members
of the Committee who dealt with the adjournment in December, 2017 as they had
direct involvement in this matter having received the decision of Cllrs Eling,
Hussain and Jones at the AMLD Committee in October, 2011 at the full Council
meeting of November, 2011 when the three of them raised no objection to and
approved the decision of Cllr Jones and others not to sell the specific plot by
auction but via a sealed bid process. As the hearing was adjourned I have asked
the three members concerned to reconsider their position and to make the
appropriate declarations.
33 On 17th January,
2017 I wrote to The Monitoring Officer
asking what the arrangements were for me attending on 24th January, 2017 but
have not yet had the courtesy of a reply.
34 Finally, whilst
the extracts from a shocking memo below came a few months after the matters in
hand it is symptomatic of the chaotic cowboy/girl operation that Cooper,
Hussain, Eling and Britton were running. Britton wrote a stiff warning to all
staff on 17th December, 2012. This was after the agreement for sale but still
at a time when corrupt staff were misleading the public and so on. This is what
he said:
“It is characteristic of failing Councils that they have poor
working relations between employees and members….. As employees, we have to
remember that it is the elected members who are “the Council” - not ourselves,
our job it to advise Members on the policies and priorities they set and then
deliver the policies and priorities they approve in the most efficient and
effective manner we can, not to set the policies ourselves…...In the old days,
this is where employees would complain that Members were “interfering” or
“getting involved in things that they’re not supposed to”.... My response is
very clear: there’s no such thing as Members interfering with something - the
Members are the people who are elected to form the Council and they have the
right to be involved in whatever way they wish - as long as it accords with the
Council’s constitution and the law of the land, if it doesn’t, that is probably
our failing not there’s, because it means we haven’t given them appropriate
advice about the constitution or the law.”
I know that the Independent Person at the Hussain hearing was
much exercised with what training etc Councillors had received relating to
compliance with the Code of Conduct and yet here we see the Chief Executive
actively attacking staff who raised queries such as happened here when it was
questioned whether it was appropriate to remove the plot from auction. But it
was a case in Mr Britton’s authority of “we do whatever Darren Cooper says” and
that was that.
Statement of Truth
I believe the facts stated in this statement are true.
Signed: J. P. Saunders
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - COMMUNITY NEWS - READ THE SKIDDER, KIDDER!
Facebook: Julian Saunders Email: thesandwellskidder@gmail.com
PROUD TO HAVE BEEN TROLLED BY DICKHEAD DARREN COOPER DECEASED!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.