Liverpool City Council
| Case no. | SBE20494.07 & SBE21036.08 |
| Member: | Councillor Warren Bradley |
| Authority: | Liverpool City Council |
| Date received: | 27 Nov 2007 |
Allegation:
The member bullied another person, failed to treat others with respect and brought his office or authority into disrepute.
Standards Board outcome:
The ethical standards officer found that no further action needs to be taken.
The complainants alleged that following the cancellation of the Mathew Street Festival on 2 August 2007, Councillor Warren Bradley’s conduct made the position of Jason Harborow, the chief executive of the Liverpool Culture Company, untenable.
It was alleged that Councillor Bradley:
- demanded in an email on 3 August 2007, circulated to all members of his political group, that Liverpool City Council’s chief executive suspend Jason Harborow immediately
- criticised Jason Harborow in the press following the festival’s cancellation
- personally treated Jason Harborow in a disrespectful and bullying manner, including a verbal attack in a meeting on 26 September 2007
- continued to criticise Jason Harborow for the festival’s cancellation, following the publication of the council’s Mathew Street investigation report and contrary to its findings
- met privately with an ex-council officer, Mr Lee Forde, on 18 November 2007 in order to conspire against Jason Harborow with a view to removing him from his position
The ethical standards officer found that, after the Mathew Street Festival was cancelled, Councillor Bradley emailed the council’s chief executive, Colin Hilton, and demanded that Jason Harborow be relieved of his duties until the investigation into the cancellation was over. The ethical standards officer took the view that while a councillor can request or suggest that an authority’s chief executive carry out a certain action, a member cannot direct the chief executive to comply with the request. Liverpool City Council’s member-officer protocol makes it clear that it is quite proper for a member to inform the chief executive if they are concerned about a senior officer’s performance. However, the responsibility for handling the complaint lies with the chief executive.
In considering whether the email amounted to a failure to treat Jason Harborow with respect, the ethical standards officer considered the context in which the email was sent, together with Councillor Bradley’s subsequent actions. The ethical standards officer accepted Colin Hilton’s view that Councillor Bradley had sent the email in the heat of the moment, and recognised that the relationship between the leader and chief executive of a council must allow for a full and frank exchange of views. Furthermore she took into account Councillor Bradley’s acceptance of Colin Hilton’s decision not to act as directed. In sending the email the ethical standards officer did not consider that Councillor Bradley was being deliberately malicious or insulting, but was genuinely concerned, along with others, about the festival’s sudden cancellation. The ethical standards officer did not consider that Councillor Bradley failed to treat Jason Harborow with respect.
After emailing Colin Hilton, Councillor Bradley sent a hard copy of his email to all the elected members in his political group. The content of this email was subsequently published in a local newspaper. Although the ethical standards officer considered Councillor Bradley must take some responsibility for the considerable personal and professional difficulty felt by Jason Harborow following the email’s publication, she accepted that Councillor Bradley did not intend this to happen and recognised that Councillor Bradley should have been able to send confidential information to his political group with the expectation of it remaining confidential.
The ethical standards officer considered that, during media interviews in the days following the cancellation, Councillor Bradley was careful not to blame individual officers. He was, however, damning about Culture Company officers in general, saying that he was ‘absolutely disgusted’ by their actions and the way they had treated members was ‘deplorable’. The ethical standards officer took the view that these comments reflected badly on the Culture Company’s chief executive and would have made his job more difficult. Councillor Bradley’s failure to respond to comments in the press about his professional relationship with Jason Harborow, after the email was published, further undermined Jason Harborow’s ability to carry out his job.
The ethical standards officer took the view that, as council leader, Councillor Bradley would have been expected to comment on the festival’s cancellation and that it was not unreasonable of him to hold the Culture Company to account. He did not refer specifically to Jason Harborow in his interviews, and his failure to respond to further coverage after his email was published could not be considered gratuitously offensive. Accordingly, the ethical standards officer did not conclude that Councillor Bradley had breached the Code of Conduct in this respect.
When Councillor Bradley met Jason Harborow on 26 September 2007, Councillor Bradley blamed him, in front of Colin Hilton, for not giving the council a more substantive role in the launch of the Capital of Culture programme. Jason Harborow forcefully defended his position and a heated exchange followed.
The ethical standards officer considered that, as the most senior officer in the Culture Company, its chief executive should be able to handle criticism from the council leader in a private meeting, and be prepared for robust discussion. Jason Harborow’s own account suggested this was the case. Furthermore, such heated debate between the two men was not the norm, previous exchanges having been courteous, and the ethical standards officer did not therefore conclude that Councillor Bradley had bullied Jason Harborow.
In September 2007 Jason Harborow submitted a grievance against the council. The council’s independent legal advisors warned that if Jason Harborow made a claim for constructive dismissal, the council would likely have to settle it.
The council’s acting city solicitor wrote to Councillor Bradley on 14 November 2007 and advised him to avoid doing or saying anything that could be interpreted as unfair criticism of Jason Harborow. Two days later Councillor Bradley gave an interview to a local newspaper about the Mathew Street investigation report. The ethical standards officer considered that during the interview Councillor Bradley implied that Jason Harborow should have been aware of a breakdown in communications in the Culture Company and should think about resigning.
It was not the ethical standards officer’s role to judge whether Councillor Bradley’s opinion on the Mathew Street report was valid, although she did consider that Councillor Bradley had been given specific legal advice in relation to talking about Jason Harborow and that his comments were therefore unwise. However, in considering whether they amounted to a failure to treat Jason Harborow with respect, the ethical standards officer had to be satisfied that they were unreasonable and personally demeaning.
As council leader, Councillor Bradley was tasked with responding to media questions about the Mathew Street investigation. During the interview, Councillor Bradley tried to avoid commenting directly on Jason Harborow’s position. Although the ethical standards officer took the view that, when pushed, Councillor Bradley had implied that the chief executive should consider his position, she did not consider, given the circumstances and the language he used, that his comments were serious enough to constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct.
On 18 November Councillor Bradley met Councillor Mike Storey and Lee Forde at his home. The ethical standards officer considered that Councillor Bradley arranged the meeting to discuss the perceived failings of the Mathew Street report and to give Lee Forde the opportunity to present Councillor Bradley with any evidence he might have in relation to it. Councillor Bradley has recognised that his meeting with Lee Forde was unwise and possibly naïve. The ethical standards officer considered this to be particularly so as Lee Forde was in the process of taking out an unfair dismissal case against the council. However, conflicting accounts of the meeting made it impossible for the ethical standards officer to conclude exactly what was discussed. She was, therefore, not satisfied that Councillor Bradley failed to treat Jason Harborow with respect by conspiring against him at the meeting on 18 November.
The ethical standards officer considered that during the period under investigation, Councillor Bradley’s conduct occasionally suggested lack of good judgement, and that it contributed to Jason Harborow feeling undermined in his role. However, in considering whether Councillor Bradley’s conduct brought his office or authority into disrepute, the ethical standards officer has recognised the pressure Councillor Bradley was under to deliver such a high profile event as Capital of Culture, and that the deterioration of his relationship with Jason Harborow was played out in the most public of arenas. While some of Councillor Bradley’s actions could be said to have damaged his personal reputation, for conduct to be disreputable to a member’s office or authority there must, in the ethical standards officer’s view, generally be some additional element pointing to a lapse in standards, such as an improper motive, unlawfulness, the hope of personal gain or gratuitously offensive behaviour. Based on the evidence the ethical standards officer saw, she did not consider this to be the case here.
The ethical standards officer has provided a copy of her full report to the standards committee of Liverpool City Council to assist it in its work to instil and promote the need for high ethical standards among members.
The ethical standards officer found that no further action was necessary.
Relevant paragraphs of the Code of Conduct
The allegations in this case relate to paragraphs 3(1), 3(2)(b) and 5 of the Code of Conduct.
Paragraph 3(1) states that a member must "treat others with respect". Paragraph 3(2)(b) states that a member must not “bully any person”.
Paragraph 5 states that “a member must not in his official capacity, or any other circumstance, conduct himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute”.
Print this page
Did you find this page helpful? Please let us know
