Check out these free legal advice images:
Riga
Image by Eversheds LLP
Free employment law consultations
Sunshine on the Welbourne Centre
Image by Alan Stanton
This is Part Six of an eight-part series about matters involving Cllr Charles Adje.
To view in sequence, please click here.
◄ Back to Part Five ║ Forward to Part Seven ►
________________________________________________________
At the Haringey Council meeting on 19 January 2009, Cllr Neil Williams put further questions to Cllr Charles Adje about a report by the Standards Board for England. (Case number SBE21513.08) This concerned the investigation into the allegation that Cllr Adje had disclosed confidential information to a solicitor.
As we had come to expect, Cllr Adje again refused to answer legitimate questions. But as well as continuing to block, he also went on the attack.
As you will see from the transcript below, Cllr Adje began by criticising Council officers.
He blamed them for not giving him "adequate and proper" legal advice. This is not a new approach from him. When he chaired the Alexandra Palace Board he tried to deflect any responsibility for the Firoka Licence at Alexandra Palace by blaming officers there.
Naturally, I was intrigued by what Cllr Adje said at the Council meeting about the legal advice he did not get. So I put my own questions to Haringey’s Legal Service. I’ll outline their reply in my next update.
Cllr Adje followed with the innuendo that his political opponents have some “sinister” and "vindictive" motives for actually asking him questions. Since I’m one of the impertinent questioners, I found this most reassuring. It’s the classic ad hominem argument. (As they say in football; ‘tackling the player, not the ball’.) If Cllr Adje has nothing to hide, instead of huffing and puffing, why doesn’t he simply give full and candid answers?
The next person in line for public denunciation was Mr Roger Lovegrove, who until May 2009 chaired Haringey’s local Standards Committee. Cllr Adje challenged his impartiality and independence. I’ll say a bit more on this below.
The final recipient for a scolding was an unnamed LibDem councillor who – Cllr Adje claimed – had "exposed sensitive commercial infomation". Cllr Adje went on to make a further allegation: that "the matter was [ . . . ] swept under the carpet apparently following an understanding he [the LibDem Councillor] reached with the then leadership."
Is any of this more than just blather and bluster? Let’s look below at what Cllr Adje said.
________________________________________________________
Transcript of part of Haringey Council meeting 19 January 2009
Cllr Neil Williams
With regard to the published summary of Standards Board for England case SBE 21513 08 can he explain in what circumstances he feels it’s appropriate to obtain independent legal advice while discharging his duties as a Haringey cabinet member?
Cllr Charles Adje
I would like to start by thanking the member for his question. I would like to repeat yet again that this matter has been dealt with already by the Standards Board. As a matter of fact and just for the record I do indeed feel that there are occasions when a cabinet member may feel it appropriate to seek independent legal advice. I do not wish to go into detail, and will not be pressed further on the matter. But in this case I had reason to feel that I was not being given adequate and proper advice on this issue. And thus decided, for the sake of my own understanding of the situation, to seek independent advice, as repeated requests for clarification on the matter was not forthcoming despite my escalation of same. That is all I have to say by way of explanation, as the matter has been investigated and decided upon already, Mr Mayor.
It is always difficult for members to always take officers’ advice as gospel. Especially when it is out of kilter with the normal Council practice, and when it has been applied in the past and not on this particular occasion. Bearing in mind the District Auditor’s comments that members should always satisfy themselves. I therefore make no apologies for seeking to safeguard the Council’s image and interest, both as a local councillor and the cabinet member in this regard.
I should like to add that I feel most disappointed that this issue is being raised again and again. It is not uncommon for members on both sides to be referred to the Standards Board for a variety of reasons. And the decisions of the Board should be trusted and respected. In my own case I am increasingly becoming to believe that my political opponents – mainly but almost certainly not solely on the opposition benches are seizing on it to try to make cheap jibes at my personal expense and continue to smear me.
If I were not convinced of their commitment to the Council’s Equal Opportunities and Anti-Discrimination Policies I might almost begin to wonder whether there were more sinister motives in their continued chewing-over of this matter, There are signs that this is becoming beginning to look like a systemic and rather personally vindictive smear campaign.
I am also extremely disappointed and indeed angry, Mr Mayor, that some part seems to have been played in the resurrection of this issue by a supposedly impartial and independent member of the Standards Committee of this Council.
Mr Mayor, does the member recall when one his colleagues – who shall remain nameless – exposed sensitive commercial information to a member of their party whose company was bidding to run an arms length organisation of the Council? From what I recall, no action was taken and the matter was – for want of a better phrase – swept under the carpet apparently following an understanding he reached with the then leadership. Talk about hypocrisy.
While I do not for one moment draw a parallel between that case and mine, I cite this example to remind him that there have been issues in his own party that could equally well be picked over by opponents with nothing better to pass their time.
That is really what I have to say on this matter, Mr Mayor. There are far more pressing and important issues that are faced by my Labour Group; the Opposition; and most importantly – base on the debate that we’ve just had in terms of the Recession – the people of this borough. And all our efforts should be focused on these matters rather than the petty political point-scoring, personal campaigns against individuals, and the picking over of old issues. Thank you.
Cllr Williams
Well, that was an extraordinary response. I mean I think the assertion that it’s being pursued for sinister reasons referred to, is risible. The other explanations given are completely incomprehensible to me. I don’t even know what he’s talking about.
But can he give us an assurance then, from this report – the summary report that everybody here must have read – as far as he is aware, is it the case that as a result of him seeking that independent advice, as this report clearly indicates, that somehow that documentation ended up in the hands of somebody with a financial interest in that property?
You are in charge of disposal of public property in our borough. Why can’t you realise this is a very serious matter? And it’s not one at which you can make cheap political points. How did that happen? And if you are so concerned that you’ve done the right thing, you won’t be sorry or hesitate to tell us how that happened.
Cllr Adje
Thank you, Mr Mayor. The member should realise that, yes, I understand and I know my responsibilities. He is fully aware – I am – that he asked for certain documentation which, by virtue of being a member of the committee, he has been provided. And he is also fully aware that I cannot go into detail and I will refer him to the written question that was posed by him; and my answers there are self-explanatory."
My Comments on this exchange between Cllr Adje and Cllr Williams
‘"I shall ignore him and the others from now on"
In fact Cllr Charles Adje is perfectly free to go into a lot more detail – and without further disclosure of confidential documents. But he had no intention of doing so. We learned this shortly after the Council meeting when he inadvertently copied a local community group into an email he sent.
"It was very heated – they did not like it. I presume he is likely to come back
but I shall ignore him and the others from now on. A.S. was heckling whilst I
was speaking. Gideon is likely going to report him to the Chief Whip."
Plainly, the ‘he’ referred to is Cllr Neil Williams.
‘A.S.’ is me. And "heckling" refers to the fact that when Cllr Adje said: "I do not wish to go into detail, and will not be pressed further on the matter", in sheer astonishment I said precisely two words out loud: "Why Not?
The then Labour "Chief Whip" was former councillor Harry Lister. (We will learn more about his involvement in Part Eight and subsequently.)
________________________________________________________
Criticism of the Chair of the local Standards Committee
I guess like most people at the Council meeting, I hadn’t a clue what Cllr Cllr Adje was on about when launched an attack on " a supposedly impartial and independent member of the Standards Committee of this Council" for "the resurrection of this issue".
(Though of course, the issue is very much alive and kicking.)
It turned out he was referring to the letter below. It was written by Mr Roger Lovegrove, Independent Chair of Haringey’s Local Standards Committee; and published in the Hampstead and Highgate Express on 2 January 2009. Unfortunately the paper’s search facility wasn’t working when I tried to find a link. So here’s the text of Mr Lovegrove’s letter to the editor. As the letter makes plain, it was not written as his personal view, but on behalf of the Standards Committee.
Text of the letter from Mr Roger Lovegrove to the Hampstead & Highgate Express
On 6 November, you ran an article about a complaint made to the Standards Board for England concerning an alleged breach of confidentiality by Councillor Charles Adje.
That report concluded with a quote from Councillor Adje in which he was reported as saying "If they thought I had done something wrong, they wouldn’t have said that no action needs to be taken."
At its meeting of 22 December, Haringey’s Standards Committee asked me to write to you to clarify the situation.
It is correct to say that the Standards Board did decide that no further action needed to be taken. As your report makes clear, however, they did actually find that Councillor Adje had broken the provisions of the Members’ Code of Conduct by breaching confidentiality.
When their decision to take no further action became known to me, I felt it necessary to write to the Standards Board on behalf of the independent members of Haringey’s Standards Committee expressing bemusement at that decision. However, since the decision had been made the matter could not be reopened.
I might add that since this complaint was originally received by the Standards Board, the whole system for the handling of complaints has been altered. Complaints are now are normally considered locally, by Standards Committees such as Haringey’s, rather than by a remote, national "umbrella" body such as the Standards Board.
Roger Lovegrove
Chair Haringey Standards Committee
Cllr Adje’s reply sent to Mr Lovegrove and others.
Dear Mr Lovegrove,
Thank you for copying me into your correspondence to the Ham & High for publication.
I find your letter absurd and am astounded that as an Independent chair of the committee that you allow your position to be used as a party political tool. Surely, if you have concerns which you have raised with the SBE with regards to their decision, that should be discussed and left at that at the committee.
It seem to me that you have allowed the independent position of chair to be undermined by allowing yourself as the current chair to be drawn into what is a party political issue and if you have any concerns, then that should rightly be raised and discussed with the appropriate bodies and not through the press.
I sought independent legal advice in good faith and will leave it there.
Yours
Cllr Charles Adje
Labour Member for White Hart Lane Ward
My Comment on this exchange of letters
There’s a rather glaring disparity between Cllr Adje’s view of the "respect" due to the Standards Board for England and to Haringey’s local Standards Committee.
About the former, Cllr Adje lectures the Council that: “decisions of the Board should be trusted and respected”. On the latter, he tells Mr Lovegrove, the committee’s chair, that he is “astounded” by his "absurd" letter to the Ham & High.
Though as we see above, Mr Lovegrove’s letter is no more than the most polite statement of the factual position.
Even in its publicly available Summary Report, the Standards Board for England plainly stated that Cllr Adje had "breached the Code of Conduct”. He did this “by disclosing confidential information without getting his solicitor to agree formally that it would remain confidential and not be further disclosed.” Please click here here to read the Summary Report on the Standards Board’s website.
═══════════════════════════════════
► Continue to Part Seven in this series which looks at
legal advice Cllr Adje requested from Haringey officers.
Volunteers with Client
Image by University of Denver
Project Homeless Connect clients had access to a wide range of free services, including housing searches, job search assistance, health care, legal advice, help with obtaining identification, and much more. PHC volunteers, including more than 400 DU students, faculty and staff, helped their clients navigate the many available services.
