Next the Council said that I accused the Chief executive of being politically biased towards Labour and then she was concerned I said she had lied.
So the first point is in my run up to the election in 2012 she wrote a letter that was in a Labour Leaflet saying I wasn't telling the truth over Ashfield. She said there was no discussions with a developer. Yet i got the information under the freedom of information. In fact here have a look for yourself. Here are their emails where the director of planning discusses the matter at length and even met with them to discuss their plans. I will let you decide who is telling the truth on the matter.
Then there was the issue of lies. I was emailed a link from an anonymous person a website. The headline is Donna Hall rocker or fibber? In the link, which is here , there is a BBC player where she says that she was actually in a band called Chumbawamba. Then after it became clear she wasn't in the band she states just for the record I was never in the band but you can hear her she was in the band. So I guess this proves she told a lie. So when it came today and I was able to ask her questions about the allegations I asked have you have told a lie, to which she wouldn't answer the question, saying it was appropriate. Hello given that we are looking at your allegation that I said you lied it is absolutely pertinent and central to the issue.
So then it comes to what I said was it wrong? Given that the emails prove that the Council had extensive talks and discussions about Ashfield proves my first point. Given the band link it is clear she got caught out there too.
On the political bias bit I had gotten into an email exchange prior to the election and I asked her if she was a member of the Labour Party Hierarchy and she answer in an email that she was the chief executive. Surely that would prove that she is biased. To be honest i am pretty sure given that the emails where getting heated that she didn't ready my emails and probably thought that I was talking about the Council, which is different to a political party.
So was the investigation fair? Not a chance to be fair someone who is carrying out an investigation has to say at the start of the process is this allegation true or not. However when I asked the question why was I not interviewed as part of the process she said she didn't need too. I ask how many times or when did she think I was not guilty of these allegations? answer - never! so therefore the investigator had a preconceived conclusion and I was never going to get a fair go at it.
When I pointed out that one of the issues was the weekend after I was elected she said that was fine, however, what she didn't know was that you are only a Cllr four days after the election by law. So therefore if I wasn't even a Cllr by law then I wasn't under the code of conduct.
So we come to was this investigation not only fair but competent? I would argue not given that it was carried out by a qualified accountant in internal audit and works for the Council. Given that the boss of the organisation was the complainant do you think she could have gone against her? The person should never have been put under that pressure and an external investigator should have been appointed. However last time an external investigator was used for when the chief executive complained about me they said and concluded that I was not guilty. So I guess the Council wanted to make sure that they got the answer they wanted an appointed an employee of the council.
So they find me guilty and have decided that they will publish this on the Council website and in the press. Don't they know that people know that the Council are biased towards Labour because it is controlled by Labour. Even one of the panel members on today's hearing said there opposition feel this is the case too but yet still Labour said I was guilty - crazy you could't make it up.
Some good news this was the first meeting that I taped on my camcorder so got it all on tape. Given that it is nearly 5 hours long I will edit the best bits and post on here at a later time.