A Big Boy Did It and Ran Away

Finally we hear from the Post that Cllr Grocock has been cleared by the Standards Committee over his 'grandson' getting a house, as highlighted originally in the report on the housing allocations scandal.

Not really a surprise, especially seeing as the monitoring officer appears to have been acting as an unofficial advocate on Grocock's behalf. His preliminary report urged the committee to throw the case out without a hearing. However, the committee would have none of that, possibly because on the day only the independent members and a Lib Dem were in attendance.

Oddly, when it came to appointing the members of the hearing sub-committee last July, i.e. the people who would hear the case, the committee deviated from its normal practice of appointing the members themselves and, on the recommendation of the monitoring officer, agreed to delegate responsibility for doing so to the Deputy Chief Executive 'in consultation with the Chair' who hadn't turned up that day. So apart from what's in the Post report we currently don't know who sat in judgment.

Anyway the Post does report that the independent member on the committee made it clear she thought his conduct was a breach of the Code of Conduct. However it seems that the monitoring officer swung the day saying -

"This happened because a senior housing officer [Tyron Browne] issued what could be described as an oblique instruction to the housing office and a tenancy was allocated. I remain of the view that the actual cause was the senior housing officer and the culture at the time."

Browne of course has since resigned and has never faced any sanction.

So, as you can see, a big boy really did do it and then ran away.

Grocock Report Published

The Monitoring Officer's report to NCC's Standards Committee, concerning Cllr Grocock and his 'grandson', has finally been published on the council's website, in advance of the Standards hearing Sub-Committee hearing the case next Friday.

This matter first went before the Standards Committee early 2009 so it has taken the best part of three years to reach this stage. As far as I know this is where a decision is actually made although don't bank on it.

As it's been so long let's remind ourselves that the case against Grocock is that he falsely claimed that a young man was his grandson when advocating for him and his partner to be allocated a property. The couple who had only specified Bestwood as an area where he would accept a property. In the end he was allocated a property in Bestwood Park, an extremely high demand area where applicants would normally spend years waiting for a property.

A factor that has previously seen little attention and which I hadn't really taken account of is that Grocock initially made his case via the Portfolio Holder for Housing at the time, Cllr David Trimble and it was him who made the approach to a 'senior officer' (unnamed but we might be able to hazard a guess). It is apparently only in his approaches to Trimble on the couple's behalf that Grocock described his constituent as his 'grandson' and had never done so before when previously approaching housing staff on his behalf.

Grocock says that he only approached Trimble after there being 'no progress' with his attempts to persuade housing officers direct of the merits of his constituent's case. In fact he had been sent two emails explaining why the couple were unlikely to get an allocation any time soon. Normally, a councillor's involvement should stop there.

Grocock's defence, and the conclusion of the monitoring officer, is that in using the 'grandson' term he was ensuring that he was declaring a personal interest as the man was a close family friend. He claims never to have got the emails from housing staff.

Now, this would be fine and a properly functional and honest environment, although you do wonder why he didn't just use the term 'close family friend' which would have been the truth. But at the time it wasn't a functional environment and the use of the term would be more likely to mean that officers would simply see that 'Cllr Grocock's lad' needed a house and to make sure one was provided.

To be fair the report does acknowledge the potential dual interpretations possible of the various facts (see p22) and says that a judgment call is required. Support for Grocock being essentially a 'good egg' is drawn from his 'long record of public life' (ignoring the fact that his stint as Lord Mayor was in its entirety occurring while he was under investigation by the Standards Committee, a situation that should not have been allowed to happen. More on this later) and the fact that he self-referred for investigation and helped facilitate it by allowing evidence collected for the District Auditor to be considered.

However, the alternative interpretation has a good deal of merit too.  Let's imagine for example that it wasn't 'lack of progress' that frustrated Cllr Grocock but that he simply didn't like the answers he had received. It's hard to imagine that he had no idea of the way things were run in the housing department at the time but maybe he didn't have access to the people that mattered himself so he had to go and see Trimble. Perhaps he needed a stronger argument for assistance than just 'close family friend'.

There are interview notes included with the report and it is notable that Grocock spends a lot of time telling the interviewers what he doesn't know. This is the standard tactic of those in power who are caught with their trousers down (for a recent example of a high profile non-Nottingham instance of this see the Murdochs before that Parliamentary committee). It seems fairly evident that Grocock isn't the sharpest tool in the box but the idea that he had no idea of what was going on is not credible.

Another factor that reduces the surprise level of the report's conclusion is that, as I mentioned above, Grocock got himself installed in the Lord Mayor's robes while the investigation was still going on. This strongly indicates that someone was pretty sure that he would be exonerated as otherwise it is not considered wise to elevate the position of a person under investigation.

Another interesting aspect is that, despite the man concerned supposedly being a close family friend, in the interview with Monitoring Officer he says that he was never contacted by him again once the matter had been passed to Trimble. That's a bit odd don't you think? I think it's possible that knowing exactly who this chap is might be quite informative.

So, as I say, the Standards Committee meets next Friday to finally consider the case. The fact that they previously refused to simply rubber-stamp the monitoring officer's conclusion is encouraging but I wouldn't want to put any money on things going against Grocock in the end.

One Down...

The 'Post' is on fire these days with revelations about NCC and today's is the news that our old mate Hassan Ahmed has decided not to stand in the upcoming elections. The Post has suggested that his decision may be due to an upcoming report from the Audit Commission concerning irregularities in the Future Jobs Fund although Ahmed denies this.

Slightly frustrating for me because I actually got a tip-off a few weeks back about some dodginess involving Ahmed, the FJF and another local anti-hero but I couldn't verify it. As such I didn't dare run it for fear of a communication from m'learned friends. And I'm afraid I'm still chicken about naming the other alleged party so we'll all just have to wait for that Audit Commission report.

It's good that at least one of the chiselling little crooks has been upended, especially after the cover up over the housing allocations scandal meaning that Cllr Grocock and Tyron Browne have managed to wriggle free, so far at least. It's a long shot but if the poisonous influence that is Jon Collins can be removed at the election NCC will be immeasurably improved.

Addendum - JoCo wrote a puff piece about FJF on his blog recently. For some reason he seems to have switched the comments off...

More Standards Committee Deliberations

The minutes from the Standards Committee meeting held to discuss the Grocock case are out. As I said before, it wasn't the actual decision making meeting but a kind of pre-discussion.

Interestingly, monitoring officer Glen O'Connell argued for the meeting and investigation report to remain private but this was rejected by the committee, although I can't see it published anywhere.

The minutes also reveal that O'Connell's recommendation is that Grocock did not breach the code of conduct which, if the committee agrees, would be a bit of a bombshell. Can't wait to see how he's justified that one.

Standards Committee Looks Like It's About to Do Something

Yep, there are signs that the Standards Committee might be about to actually do some actual work.

The 18 Feb agenda lists a consideration of 'case 2009/001'. This COULD be the Cllr Grocock case but, as it's obviously going on behind closed doors I can't be sure.

If it is I confidently predict he will be fully exonerated because the Standards Committee is a JoCo lapdog.

Update - My mistake, the above appears to be a pre-consideration of the investigation report for that case. I think THIS is the meeting where an actual case is being considered but, as it's designated 2010/001, it's obviously not the same one and is probably not Grocock's. No idea whose its mind because, you guessed it, it's being kept secret.

An Early Contender for Least Surprising Event of the Year

I mentioned before that Cllr Tony Sutton submitted a motion to full council asking that it support his call for the IPCC to investigate Notts Police for their criminal and likely corrupt decision not to investigate the housing allocations coruption scandal at Nottingham City Homes. Over to the Post to tell us what happened with that one but before you click on the link try guessing the result. Go on give it a go.

Yup you were right. The motion was defeated with the vote split clearly on party lines i.e. apparently every single Labour member voted against.

There's a rather sinister quote from Cllr Chapman -

"Why would we want to cover up? The easiest thing for us would have been to get a few heads rolling, get a few martyrs – guilty or not guilty – prosecuted and we could have got on with it."

In other words, Cllr Chapman thinks it's more honest to cover up corruption using the time honoured method of hiding the matter under the carpet as opposed to the alternative one of fitting somebody up. Notice he doesn't see the third option i.e. of actually catching the real perpetrator and handing them over to the police. That's because the perpetrators are either still in power or working with some of NCC's most favoured 'partners'.

So let's round up what has happened so far -

JoCo called Cllr Sutton a 'prat' fpr mentioning that he himself had contacted Tyrone Brown on behalf of a tenant who was then handed a property outside the normal procedures.

The Standards Committee quietly rejected a key Audit Commission recommendation that councillors should be required to declare any personal relationship with tenants on whose behalf they make representations. Apparently it would be too complicated for them.

Cllr Grocock has been openly named as having dishonestly tried to help someone get a property by saying he was his grandson. Despite there being no apparent dispute over the facts of this the Standards Committee has still not completed its investigations into the matter. I'd bet £1.50 of my own money that they won't do either until after the election. In the meantime he has been severely punished by, er, being appointed as Lord Mayor which just happens to carry with it an extra £25k personal allowance.

One part time temp has been let go. This is the sum total of disciplinary action taken. Similarly, no houses have been repossessed.

The council's internal investigation has cost £100k (or £150k if you believe Cllr Chapman's latest claim). This is apparently as much as can be justified*, although compare with this the £700k spent on the investigation and prosecution of the Ratcliffe environmental activists. Different organisation I know but let's not forget that JoCo is the Chair of Notts Police Authority too.

Furthermore, and if this isn't the clincher on this being a cover up I don't know what is, this £100k was spent on paying external solicitors to do NCC's Legal Services' normal work while they did the investigation themselves. Why? Surely a fresh set of eyes would have been more appropriate for the investigation rather than make them all learn NCC's systems which they would be completely unfamiliar with. Even on an efficiency aregument this was the wrong way round. It's difficult not to conclude that the idea was to make sure no-one looks in the wrong (right?) places. Where this leaves NCC's lawyers' professional standing I don't know.

All this is dodgy as fuck and, in theory should result in Labour being shown the door at the next elections in May. Unfortunately I doubt this will happen, I rather expect postal voting to play a pivotal role in the final result.

*To put this into context I reckon my employment tribunal case cost them over £40k including internal staff time.

Collins (and others) Cover Up #2

You will probably have read the Post's coverage of NCC's decision not pursue the housing allocations scandal any further.

Not the world's biggest surprise admittedly, especially as JoCo had been implicated early on and we couldn't have him being looked at too closely could we?

Similarly, despite the more concrete allegations regarding Cllr Brian Grocock's involvement he was still installed as Lord Mayor, presumably so that someone well-behaved would be chairing council meetings. And I'm sure it's just coincidence that the Standards Committee is stalling over its investigation into what he got up to.

Lastly, we have Tyron Browne who legged it as fast as his little legs could carry him when the shit hit the fan but is comfortably ensconced in hoovering up grant aid from NCC via PATRA and now Nottingham Equal, which is a whole other den of iniquity involving One Nottingham and Cllr Hassan Ahmed (who the Standards Committee also seem to be dragging their feet over investigating).

What is funny is that NCC has supposedly spent £100k on its own solicitors investigating the matter. This from the council who drafts in outside consultants at the drop of a hat and whose legal department couldn't find their own backsides if it was a foggy day. Strange that in this context which would benefit from an outside objective look they decide to stay in house.

And of course the Notts Police (prop. J. Collins Esq) have also decided not to investigate.

Other than that I think the Post's coverage speaks for itself and there's not a lot to add.

PS Happy New Year all.

Addendum - Here's the actual report recommending no further action. Could've sworn that wasn't there before...

Working For Your Constituents

It's always heartwarming to see councillors stand up for their constituents, especially when that assistance transcends the fact that the constituent concerned is serving a 35 year stretch in one of Her Maj's finest establishments.

And so my cockles were warmed, nay toasted, to see Cllr Brian Grocock, duly elected member for Bestwood ward and the current Lord Mayor, representing a constituent's interests responding to a piece reported in the Post today.

You might have heard of Cllr Grocock's constituent. He's a misunderstood Robin Hood figure, no angel he'd be the first to admit but he loves his mum and always looked out for the old folk and local teenagers. Sometimes to the point of providing lucrative employment opportunities for the latter.

Among those who misunderstand our humble folk hero is Notts Police who helped to arrange for his long term stay in his new accommodation but not in the way that Cllr Grocock normally helps his constituents to find somewhere to live.

Anyway, the rozzers seem to be thinking that this chap is still involved in nefarious activities organised from his cell, as do a former Notts Chief Constable and a local community worker.

Enter stage left Cllr Grocock who's here to tell us that these fears are are all stuff and nonsense and that his constituent is being much maligned. After all, what do the police know, they only had a specialist unit investigating the alleged felon, his family and his associates (some of whom have also spent time in the clink but I've no truck with guilt by association on this blog) for several years? Clearly Cllr Grocock knows best and that anybody who thinks they are currently suffering at the hands of this chap and his associates must be imagining things.

I'm so glad that responsible and knowledgeable public figures like Cllr Grocock are here to combat the needless panic and alarm spread by the police and to stand up for his constituent's good name.

At least, I presume that's his motivation for speaking out, can't think of anything else...

Standards Committee Fail

Here is the text of an email that I have just sent to Glen O'Connell, Nottingham City Council's monitoring officer concerning the consistent and ongoing failure of the Standards Committee to deal with complaints against councillors -

"Dear Mr O'Connell,

It is nearly two months since I last heard from you with regard to the complaints I have made against serving City Councillors and yet I have heard nothing further. Both of these go back as far as May yet as far as I can tell absolutely nothing has been done.

In addition I notice that complaints about other councillors appear to be making no progress and yet the Standards Committee appears to be repeatedly canceling meetings. Even if they do manage to get it together the agenda rarely seems packed. I think it is true to say that the Standards Committee have yet to hear any complaint against a serving councillor.

It is hard not to conclude that the internal regulation system for elected members' behaviour is collectively dragging its feet. At best it is utterly failing to do its duty to the citizens of Nottingham. I realise it would be politically embarrassing for the Lord Mayor, Leader and a Portfolio Holder to be investigated at the same time but I hope that this is not playing any part in the delay.

Please will you take this email as a formal complaint under Nottingham City Council's complaints procedure for the unacceptable delays in dealing with all complaints against councillors. As part of dealing with this complaint I would be grateful if you could provide an update to the cases that I have referred at least, however it would be preferable if The Standards Committee were to provide a public update on all cases. Nottingham City Council is quick to name and shame individuals when it sees fit and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

The reference to cases that I referred concerns complaints I made in May in May about Cllr Ahmed's role in the decision to cut CEHRNN's funding and against JoCo for, ahem, 'making a mistake' when telling the call-in sub-committee that the sale of Radford Unity Complex would raise twice as much as he had already offered it for sale to a bunch of artists. In addition there is still the Cllr Grocock issue outstanding which is becoming farcical in the extent of its delay.

I can't help wondering if the agenda is to make sure that nothing is heard before the elections next year.

Update - no response by end of play Friday

Differing Fortunes

I've previously written quite a bit on the decision by NCC to cease funding the Council for Equality and Human Rights Nottingham and Notts but there was an interesting aspect that I'd missed.

Councillor Brian Grocock used to be on CEHRNN's board. His annual report from 2008/9 confirms he was an NCC appointed member of Notts REC (CEHRNN's previous name prior to its widened remit) and I have been told that he was there right up to the decision to stop the funding before resigning.

Now NCC have made all sorts of claims and criticisms about CEHRNN's service (a few of which they accept) so, assuming the principle of collective responsibility, surely Grocock is as much to blame as anybody?

And yet, while CEHRNN has had to resort to m'learned friends and making redundancies, Grocock has been rewarded with a posh new frock and an extra £25k in his new role of Lord Mayor.

Considering that Grocrook was fingered in the housing allocations scandal and is being (very slowly) investigated by the Standards Committee over that, you have to wonder exactly what it is he's doing right in order to warrant such resilience.

(Un)Fairness Commission

One Nottingham has announced in its latest bulletin that it is to establish a 'Fairness Commission' (see page 4).

According to a report prepared for ON the Fairness Commission's role will be -

"...to research, promote and hold One Nottingham accountable on issues of equality and diversity."

The Bulletin announces that it will be chaired by Cllr Hassan Ahmed.

I'm sorry but has everyone gone mad? Hassan Ahmed in charge of a Fairness Commission? The very same Hassan Ahmed who decided at a stroke to end the funding for one of Nottingham's major anti-discrimination organisations whilst keeping the reasons secret? Hassan Ahmed, who was caught red handed by the Evening Post failing to declare a number of business interests and as a result was found guilty of breaching the Members' Code of Conduct by the Standards Board for England? Who, having been found guilty, not only failed to apologise to local taxpayers and the council but issued a bombastic and blatantly bullshit statement to the press claiming that he had been exonerated  and that the Standards Board had found that he had 'no case to answer'? Who, despite being arrested for a serious crime, kept this secret and failed to stand down from his portfolio holder position until, again, the Post rumbled him? (should make it clear that he was not subsequently charged)

Yeah, he sounds like the ideal person for the job. Dishonest and secretive, he should know a lot about fairness.

This seems to be a continuation of a trend in NCC of promoting crooks, following Cllr Grocrook's elevation to Lord Mayor. Does it always have to be this way?

Theft from Former Post Office?

Some new info just in concerning the somewhat dodgy removal by NCC of 'Save Carrington Post Office's campaign materials from the former PO site.

It turns out that the campaign has reported the loss to the Police and it has been recorded as theft. Seeing as NCC has admitted that they removed the items this looks like a bit of an open and shut case. The courts really should make an example of this sort of thing.

Anyway, the campaigners have done a bit of rooting around and apparently the affair was triggered by an anonymous call to the fly-tipping team at NCC complaining about "blatantly political advertising". A further phone call complaining about the area looking run down and saying that "that sort of advertising" did nothing to help was found to have been made by a serving NCC councillor who had previously told campaigners that she supported the campaign. This couldn't be a case of a councillor telling local people what they want to hear with one face while behind the scenes working to support the former government's line on closures with the other could it?

Another councillor has apparently privately apologised and promised to make enquiries but as yet the campaigners have heard nothing on this, nor from Jane Todd who they had written to previously.

Compare and contrast this with the account of JoCo's Gordon Brown style granny cuddling following NCC workers' removal of England flags that she had hung across the road. As far as I can see, it was quite lawful for them to do so (although arguably a little unwise but you could argue about that all day) and they did in fact leave the flags behind so there's no issue of theft unlike the SCPO case.

Yet within a day the Leader of the City Council has turned up on her doorstep with apologies and flowers and she has been invited to a 'tea party' with the Lord Mayor Cllr Brian Grocrook who presumably is going to discover that she is a long lost relative and bump her up the waiting list for a new house as part of the charm offensive.

But of course SCPO have yet to hear anything. They need to get an ENG-ER-LAND supporting little old lady on the team.

Standards Committee Lumbers Into 'Action'

So that was the General Election that was. While the horse trading goes on I'll get back to some normal business.

Looks like there may be some movement in the cases against councillors accused of breaking the code of conduct.

The Standards Committee is meeting on 17 May and is due to appoint a hearing sub-committee. As far as I can tell this is the body who will actually decide on the complaint.

The report on this move mentions a 'self-referral' to the committee and so, although no-one is named, we can conclude that this one concerns Cllr Grocock who was named as the next Lord Mayor just the other day.

There's no indication as to when this sub-committee will actually meet to hear the case but it looks like it will be in good time for any fall-out to blow over in time for the next elections. And my guess is that will be 'what do you mean he hasn't breached the code of conduct, did you read the Audit Commission's report?' type fall-out rather than 'Grocock resigns as Lord Mayor in disgrace' type fall-out.

They also appear to be appointing 'assessment and review' sub-committees which are the 'are we going to even bother looking at this?' stage of proceedings but they don't mention who those are about. According to the minutes of the last meeting they appointed one of these then so presumably that means all three cases are finally on the go.

Don't hold your breath...

Dodgy Councillor to be Next Lord Mayor

The Post is reporting that Cllr Brian Grocock has secured the nomination to be the next Lord Mayor. The formal appointment is due to be made by full council at its meeting on 10 May.

The Post says that his nomination papers were signed by Jon Collins himself, which is strange seeing as JoCo made a public declaration that he accepted 'in full' the findings of the Audit Commission's report into the NCH scandal that Grocock had lied in order to secure constituents a house by claiming that one of them was his grandson. He's up before the Standards Committee over that which already has form for quietly sitting on aspects of that pitiful episode. Grocock's case has already been sitting around for a year and shows no sign of progress.

Of course, the question as to whether he actually lied or not is immaterial. The fact is that he used his influence to subvert the housing allocations policy. Whether it was on behalf of his grandson or the Queen of Sheba hardly matters.

The Lord Mayor's role includes "...act[ing] as the a-political figurehead of the City Council; champion of the city of Nottingham and its people..." I'm not sure how being found to be corrupt is consistent with that. The Lord Mayor's position attracts a special allowance of £24,899 pa on top of the standard councillor's allowance of £11,581 pa. It is therefore the second highest paid post after the Leader.

Politically speaking, and bearing in mind the geological timescales of the Standards Committee, this again makes me wonder whether JoCo has thought all this through. Having a sitting Lord Mayor being censured by the Standards Committee would be bad enough but in a year's time NCC's councillors will be facing an election. It's quite conceivable that the Standards Committee will be announcing its findings uncomfortably close to a time when sitting Labour councillors could do without their party's role in one of the biggest scandals at NCC in recent times being highlighted before a cynical electorate.

Unless of course for some reason JoCo feels confident of the way that the Committee's decision will go...

Naughty Councillors - Allegedly

In what I have to say is a somewhat surprising move, NCC has replied in full to my Freedom of Information request asking which councillors have been referred to the Standards Committee.

So, in no particular order the three alleged miscreants so named are as follows -

1) Cllr Brian Grocock.

We knew about this one, he referred himself after getting all sticky in the Nottingham City Homes mishmash.

2) Cllr Hassan Ahmed

It seems like, oooh, HOURS since we last wrote about Cllr Ahmed and he hardly seems to have been out of one sort of trouble or another in the past year or so. He was in the Evening Post only the other day because they'd discovered that he hadn't quite been truthful about his interests. And of course he was arrested (but never charged) over an assault which NCC obligingly kept secret until he was rumbled.

3) Cllr Mick Newton

A surprising one this as I hadn't heard a peep about it until I got the FoIA response so I've no idea what it's all about. I hear a rumour that he hasn't been seen for a while chez NCC which probably doesn't bode too well for him.

All three of these cases are still at the investigation stage and none have been completed. This really is pretty poor, not least for accountability but, as we have to recognise innocence before guilt is proved and obviously we don't know whether that will be the outcome, it's hardly a good thing for the individuals concerned either.

A surprising omission from the list was Cllr Mohammad Aslam who was at the centre of a major discrimination case brought by the former Chief Exec of the Nottingham Black Partnership last year. I'd have thought that he would have been a shoe-in.

ASBOs, Public Humiliation and Double Standards

JoCo has just unilaterally approved an extention to NCC's 'class leading' anti-social behaviour service. In a recently published portfolio decision you will find the following -

"For example, in addition to reporting ASB and 'Grot spots', customers should be able to phone up and find out who in their area has an ASBO or Injunction, what conditions they have and even receive a copy of the Order. They should be able to find out what stage their criminal or civil case is at within the Court process."

So, not only do ASBOs in Nottingham turn non criminal behaviour into criminal behaviour by simply labelling it as 'anti-social' you also get publicly humiliated as well. Note that this will include informing what stage in the process has been achieved i.e. potentially BEFORE a court has made any order or decision.

Compare and contrast this approach with how the (Double) Standards Committee deals with councillors who break the rules.

The agenda of the meeting on 15 February lists the establishment of an assessment sub-committee to hear a complaint against a councillor. We have no idea which councillor this is. Well, we can guess, my money is on Councillor Grocock.

The minutes of the previous meeting record the deliberations of an assessment sub-committee hearing two complaints against a councillor. The public was excluded because it would have been possible to identity the councillor concerned.

And of course, what has happened to Hassan Ahmed who the 'Post' caught bang to rights not declaring very relevant business interests? His fate seems to be currently secret/not being pursued at all but I think we should be told. And there are at least two other potential candidates for an investigation into whether the Councillors' Code of Conduct has been breached too.

One law etc...

The Standards Committee Awakes, Fear Ye!

After a rather long layoff i.e. since April this year the Standards Committee is finally meeting on Monday 21 December. I would provide a link to the agenda but the open.nottingham bit of the NCC website is pished so I'll have to add it in later.

Most interesting bit (that is, the only bit I can remember right now and I can't look at the frickin agenda) is that there are three complaints about councillors being looked at. It's not really clear what stages they've reached and an email to NCC didn't help a lot but I THINK one of them is only at the stage of putting together the assessment committee but the other two appear to be at final report stage. However it isn't clear when any of this is going to be made public.

But three cases? I only know of one for definite which is former Sheriff Brian Grocock. We can all guess the others I'm sure but I've not seen any others confirmed. I may have missed it all and if I have please let me know in the comments.

But it all seems to take rather a long time which helps nobody and there seems to be a level of secrecy that the ordinary chap/ess in the street probably won't get when they're hauled up by NCC for 'grime stuff' and the like, they'll be named and shamed.

Update, looks like they've got the techies in cos the site works now, link added.

Freedom of Information...Will be Along in a While (reprise)

I love this site, it could pretty much write the blog for me, although you'd miss my rapier like wit and repartee.

No, you would.

Anyway, we talked a little while ago about NCC's seeming inability to respond to Freedom of Information requests in a timely fashion and I mentioned that someone had made a FoI request about this.

Well NCC has responded, although by my reckoning, a day late. They could have put a bit of effort into presenting the data as well.

The questioner has helpfully added an annotation with the percentages of responses made in time by year -

2005 - 53%
2006 - 34%
2007 - 40%
2008 - 26%*
2009 - 37% so far

Overall, they have responded to FoI requests on time in 31% of cases. Not particularly good in my opinion.

There's quite a bit of other interesting data about other issues such as the number of occasions where data wasn't held and stuff.

On a related note, I'm becoming increasingly concerned that NCC is quietly sitting on information that it has stated it would routinely publish on its website. I'm talking of the decision to install CCTV in Forest Fields which has still to find its way into the 'Portfolio Decisions' section of their website. It is mentioned in a 'Local Issues' report to the next Area 4 Committee meeting but all it says is that the matter has been referred to JoCo to make a decision, which is a bit out of date.

I'm also wondering what has happened to the Standards Committee, no minutes for the last meeting on 21 April and no agenda published for the next meeting due on 20 July, less than a week away. The Standards Committee is of course looking into Cllr Grocock's 'alleged' part in the housing scandal. Funny how they should go off the radar at such a time.

* NCC would probably want us to point out that 2008 included an exceptionally large number of requests due to lots of staff writing in to find out how their terms and conditions would be affected by single status. Some might suggest that the information should have been handed over at the start of the process. I'm just saying.

Standards Committee Comings and Goings

An anonymous comment on a previous post asked what might happen to Councillor Aslam who was found to have harassed Aneela Asim, the former Chief Executive of Notts Black Partnership. Well, something may have started.

Councillor Aslam has resigned from the Standards Committee. This would presumably be the body charged with the responsibility of judging his conduct as a councillor in this matter and of course he can't sit in judgment of his own actions.

Of course I feel obliged to point out that there may be no connection whatsoever but we'll have to wait and see.

Talking of the Standards Committee, still no sign of their last meeting's minutes on NCC's website, nor of the proceedings against Councillor Brian 'he's my grandson honest' Grocock.

Housing Scandal Pratfalls

I've just been having a read of the Evening Post's reports about last night's Council meeting called to discuss the recent Audit Commission report on council house thievery. You might have heard something of this.

It turns out that, despite all the rhetoric, NCC aren't going to make a formal referral to the police after all. Strangely, the formal response issued immediately on publication of the report which quoted Jon Collins extensively (and which I linked to in my earlier article) seems to be no longer available so I can't go back and compare his attitude then with now.

[Update, thanks to Nick B (see comments) here's a quote from JoCo from that statement;

"The Police were informed in 2006 of investigations into these matters and we may ask them to consider again whether they should investigate them now. Where individuals involved in any of these cases are still employed by either organisation internal investigations will be commenced immediately." (my emphasis)

So he left himself some wiggle room. We 'may' ask the police to look into it but, now much of the fuss has died down we're not going to bother. Lets move on eh people?]

However the fun really starts when opposition councillors start suggesting that, horror of horrors, Labour councillors might possibly have realised that their humble and completely legitimate representations on behalf of their constituents got them a not totally legitimate leg up the queue. Cllr Brian Grocock is the headline boy on this one. For some reason he pretended that a constituent was a relative when contacting on his behalf. Its difficult to imagine a reason for this other than that the clear message that 'Cllr Grocock's lad' needed a house pronto would be heard loud and clear.

One of the Lib Dems highlighted a case where JoCo himself wrote in on behalf of a constituent resulting in a memo from Tyron Browne saying

"As you are aware this is a case that has been brought to my attention by the leader, I should appreciate it, therefore, if you would arrange for an offer to be made as soon as possible."

On being confronted with this JoCo apparently showed his statesmanlike qualities by calling the Lib Dem a 'prat' and blaming his secretary.

Whats interesting to me here is the whole dynamic of what was happening in NCH at the time and, probably, for years previously. Councillors will say in their defence that they never explicitly ordered staff to bump their constituents up the queue and therefore accusations of a conspiracy are unfounded. Yet clearly the report from the Audit Commission shows that those constituents clearly benefited.

I think there are parallels with a media theory constructed by Chomsky and Herman called the 'Propaganda Model'. This examines how the media's capitalist interests effectively 'filter' the stories that are published but not necessarily by an explicit central 'command' from capitalists. Rather a "...decentralized and nonconspiratorial...system of control and processing..." occurs, carried out by individuals who nevertheless are aware of what's expected of them.

So I think a similar thing was happening at NCH/NCC Housing Dept. Of course, councillors never said "move these people to the top of the queue" because they never needed to do, staff already knew what to do. Occasionally a hint would have to be dropped such as claiming that the constituent was a grandson for instance but generally the wheels were already well greased.

Incidentally this whole business of Cllr Grocock is very strange. In an ideal world where everybody is above board, when a Councillor makes representations on behalf of a constituent who is also a close family member or friend, in my experience at other authorities they would declare this interest. The idea being that everyone is open and honest and a councillor's family doesn't get an unfair advantage.

Yet in Nottingham, the Grocock case shows that not only had this basic principle of accountability flown out of the window, it had actually been turned inside out so that a Councillor, knowing that one of his family members would get special treatment, went as far as pretending that a constituent was a family member so they could take advantage of the family special offers too. Unbelievable.