HUSHING up bullying and harassment allegations goes to the heart of who runs Herefordshire Council and how, it has been claimed.

Councillors were kept in the dark over settlement and severance payments made to resolve the allegations in 2012 and 2013.

The then chairman of the council’s overview and scrutiny committee has told the Hereford Times he had “no hint” from any officer over the allegations or related payments.

Nor can he recall being given any information on the allegations or the payments by a senior councillor – if senior councillors knew.

The overview and scrutiny committee – intended to function as a watchdog for cabinet decisions taken in either open session or behind closed doors – was never given any opportunity to analyse and question the way the allegations were handled or resolved.

A combined total for the related figures is thought to run into six figures.

As reported by the Hereford Times yesterday (Wed) the council refuses to release even a ballpark figure for the payments and is backed by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in refusing to release all but the most basic details of the allegations and resolutions. 

This ruling means the Hereford Times cannot confirm how much public money has been spent in settlement and severance payments to resolve allegations said to involve between 10 and 20 staff.

Cllr Alan Seldon, former chairman of the overview and scrutiny committee, said his members were never given the opportunity to debate the allegations and related course of action.

At the time, said Cllr Seldon, he had “no hint” from senior council officers or cabinet level councillors as to the allegations and related course of action.

But he concedes that cabinet level councillors may not have known either.

A retrospective scrutiny examination is, however, unlikely.

Scrutiny’s workload is largely dictated by cuts to the council’s democratic services function.

Though still sitting on the committee, Cllr Seldon said that, given the circumstances, he would need “some convincing” that a retrospective inquiry  would be of future benefit.

Cllr Seldon, of Its Our County (IOC), was ousted as scrutiny chair at full council in May. He and his IOC deputy Cllr Liz Harvey lost out to an Tory-Independent double act.

In a deal sealed behind the scenes and settled at a vote, former Independent group leader Cllr Sebastian Bowen took the chair with Tory Cllr Barry Durkin his deputy.

Lib Dem group leader Cllr Terry James said the way in which the allegations and their resolution was handled went to the heart of the who ran the council and how.

Where the council now gave every appearance of being run “by officers for officers” there was, said Cllr James, scope for a no confidence motion in the current leadership.

 At the very least, he said, external auditors should be invited in to examine how the allegations and resolution were handled.

As a group leader, Coun James said he, too, had no hint of what was going on.

Given the gagging clauses that restrict – if not rule out – identification, argument around the circumstances has to address political principle.

Essentially, the questions facing the council relate to who sanctioned the course of action taken and how wide was the knowledge of that course of action.

And if the knowledge was kept tight – why?

Senior officers, for example, may have been acting to spare the council costly and damaging employment tribunals in the name of “reputation management”.

Duty of care issues towards alleged victims also come into play.

These questions are already doing the rounds of The Shire Hall with a full council meeting little more than a week away.

BACKGROUND

The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) – which polices the Freedom of Information Act – was asked to review the council’s response last year to a request for information about severance payments relating to bullying and harassment allegations.

The council confirmed that payments were made in the last quarter of 2012 and the second quarter of 2013 in relation to a grievance regarding bullying and harassment.

According to the ICO report, five payments were made with 10 to 20 individuals involved in the grievance.

These payments, the report says, were made as “grievance settlements” that had not been declared publicly.

The council told the ICO that further disclosure would cause “damage and distress” to those involved professionally and personally.

Such information, the council said, revealed how a private dispute was settled and the amount of money received as a result of settling that dispute.

Those settlements contained clauses relating to the “need” to keep the contents confidential and binding to all parties involved.

Assurances were also given by the council that information about the settlements would not be disclosed.

The ICO accepted a “legitimate public interest” in the disclosure of the withheld information but ruled that public interest did not outweigh the interests of the “case subjects”.