Conflict of interests and complaint from former employee

Question

It's all go at my parish council, I need some more advice please.

A former employee (council paid them off to avoid going to tribunal) has made some serious accusations on Facebook about the clerk, the chairman and another councillor.

The clerk has understandably taken umbrage at the accusations and amended the full council agenda apparently unilaterally to discuss it. I pointed out that it had been amended too late for 3 clear days notice which wasn't well received. The clerk has reverted to the previous agenda and said that the accusations have made them ill. I asked what support they needed from the council but have had no response.

I have separately responded to all councillors without the clerk saying the accusations need to be investigated, the clerk mustn't be involved and the councillors named along with their family members should recuse themselves because of their conflict of interests.

I have had no response but the clerk has called an EGM for Thursday to discuss and agree measures relating to the wellbeing of staff. I know that the email has been discussed in their group meeting, they are choosing to ignore it.

They will be saying that the accusations haven't followed the complaints procedure which would require the former employee to submit a complaint about the clerk and chairman to the clerk or chairman and for that reason should not be investigated. My view is that the accusations of misconduct have been made in the public sphere and can't be ignored.

The chairman's suggestion will be to take legal action to prevent the accusations from being repeated rather than them being investigated and to try and extend that to me to prevent me talking about it.

My expectations aren't unreasonable are they?

Answer 1

Did the Council pay them off to avoid going to tribunal because the Council expected to lose the tribunal? Did the Council take legal advice before doing so? Does the Council benefit from free HR advice as part of its insurance cover? A severance payment without a legal agreement that includes confidentiality clauses can be presented as an admission of guilt, regardless of the circumstances. It's too late to close the stable doors now.

As a matter of interest, do you think there is any substance to the accusations?

Comments

I wasn't on the council at the time so I don't know what advice was given. Do I think the accusations have substance? Yes, highly probable. It's that kind of parish council.

---

The chairman and the other councillor accused of wrongdoing (one of the chairman's children) have both responded to my email now. One said no complaint has been made, the other suggests I read the complaints procedure. Their line is that unless a complaint is submitted to the council the accusations shouldn't be investigated.

Answer 2

There's a lot to unpack there...

A private individual making personal comments on FB about council staff / Cllrs is not a 'complaint' to the council.  For a formal response from the council the circumstances should be presented TO the council.
Quite right, clerk should not be unilaterally amending agenda esp after it has been issued.  Neither can the clerk convene an extraordinary meeting - a number of Cllrs can and the chair can, not the clerk.

The chair might 'suggest' taking legal action (but that would need to be supported by a motion of the council) and the reality is, if the person making the comments has reasonable belief that the issues being raised are 'true', in the public interest and evidentially supported, there isn't actually any legal recourse a council can take to prevent article 19 freedom of expression.
It sounds like the 'well being of staff' agenda is being used to cloak the actual discussion which will be the content of the public comments.
A council really has no power, authority nor responsibility for public comments made by a private individual about council staff although they may well try several inappropriate courses of action in an attempt to intimidate and silence the public concern.  It's a well travelled path which often results in staff 'stress' absence leading to attempted industrial tribunal.
You could be looking at the payments schedules and seeking answers to who and why the former employee was 'paid off.'

Comments

Things have now escalated. The clerk has written a "report" in which they accuse me of allowing the accusations to be published because I am the administrator of the Facebook group. It was in a comment on someone else's post, I had no involvement in publishing it and when the clerk raised it I found it and removed it. This is why the clerk should not be involved, it is personal to them. I have asked for the report to be corrected to remove the factually incorrect statement about me. There will be coordination between the clerk and chairman on this, it's not accidental.

---

Don't rise to it.  If you host a FB page where people are free to comment then people are free to comment.

There is a growing tendency for private individuals (and Cllrs) to host social media pages which seek to hold councils to public account.
If you are an 'admin' or page creator and the page is a generic open source public information platform and you don't act or present the page or yourself as being 'of' or 'on behalf of' the council, and you only post that which is personal opinion or information drawn from open source about the PC, then the objectors can go whistle...

---

It is quite easy to predict the path you are likely to need to travel because it is a well trodden path with a fairly predictable outcome.

Let us know how close to accurate the following assessment is:

 - You've joined a council with well established and dominant characters previously operating entirely to their own satisfaction.

 - The well established and dominant characters are feeling challenged by searching and perhaps 'uncomfortable,' but entirely reasonable and appropriate questions from a 'new comer.'

 - Overlaid upon this (illustrated from your previous input) there are pre-existing staff 'issues' which may not have been properly laid to rest - staff 'paid off' to avoid formal action.
- The well established and dominant characters are presenting barriers and resistance to the impudent 'new comer' and presenting the questions as 'unreasonable.'

What happens next is likely to be a concerted effort, from the well established and dominant characters, to isolate, alienate and suppress the impudent 'new comer.'

There will be a series of efforts, via the council, to seek to control, suppress or take over the FB page.

There will then be efforts to suppress the impudent 'trouble maker' via code of conduct complaints.

There may then be attempts via threatening and entirely inappropriate pseudo 'legal' correspondence from whoever is representing the council.
There will then be (or may occur concurrently) indications that the clerk is 'stressed' or feeling 'undermined' leading to sick leave followed by (or concurrent) threats of Ind Tribunal and constructive dismissal which will be intended to 'pressure' the council through potential loss of the clerk.

The impudent new comer will feel increasingly isolated and either become disillusioned and quit or they will double down and press forward with entirely appropriate but obviously uncomfortable questions for the well established cadre.

It is easy to make this prediction because it is a startlingly common scenario!

What happens next is entirely dependent upon the determination and moral compass of the 'impudent new comer.'

Giving up is the easy path - sticking with it is not so easy but there is an ever growing awareness and support mechanism (which certainly doesn't include NALC) for those that are facing such scenarios.

---

As usual you’ve hit the nail on the head