The Independent Investigator's report into the circumstances surrounding the death of Cllr Tayo Oladapo will be presented to full Council on Monday. A separate report concerning a complaint against Cllr Muhammed Butt will be presented at a later date.
Penn writes:
In
addition to this review of the events and the process I have been appointed by
the Council’s Monitoring Officer to investigate a Members’ Code of Conduct
complaint about the conduct of Councillor Muhammed Butt. Councillor Butt is the
Leader of the Council and Leader of the majority Labour Group. In broad terms,
it is alleged that Councillor Butt apparently misled the Council over the death
of former Councillor Oladapo. I have been asked to investigate a number of
issues and prepare a separate standards investigation report which will be
considered by the Council’s Standards Committee.
Inevitably, this general review will overlap with the
standards investigation and therefore the two reports are bound to contain some
of the same information. However, they are intended to serve distinct purposes
and will be reported accordingly.
Richard Penn's conclusions and recommendations:
(LINK)
My review
of the key events from the perspectives of the Council officials involved is
set out in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.17 above.
My review
has established:
1.
the
information and facts known and understood by key officers and members of the
Council throughout the relevant period and how this was formally reported at
meetings of Full Council.
It is clear that the reports presented to
meetings of the Full Council from March 2015 to September 2015 and that led to
approval of continued absence on the grounds of ill-health relied heavily on
information that was provided by the Leader and other councillors who were in
regular contact with Councillor Olapado including through visiting him in hospital.
The real problem occurred at the beginning of 2016 when Councillor Oladapo left
hospital and then suffered a relapse after the organ transplant. From that
point on his whereabouts and situation were unknown so the information that was
used in the report to the Full Council in February 2016 was based on hearsay
and assumptions that were the only basis on which the recommendations for
continued leave of absence could be made in good faith.
2.
whether
further or better information could reasonably have been obtained about former
Councillor Oladapo prior to the meeting of Full Council on 22 February 2016;
The
report to Full Council on 18 January 2016 had requested approval for further
absence by Councillor Oladapo following an organ transplant, but the week
before the Council meeting the Council Leader had told her that Councillor
Oladapo had been readmitted to hospital. At the pre meeting before the next
Council meeting on 22 February 2016 the Leader referred to Councillor Oladapo’s
further absence saying that he had not heard from Councillor Oladapo or his
family but that he had become aware that Councillor Oladapo was no longer at
the Royal Free Hospital. Councillor Butt said that he understood that
Councillor Oladapo’s health had deteriorated and that his mother had taken
Councillr Oladapo to die. The Chief Executive advised that she considered that
the Council
should
now let Councillor Oladapo’s membership of the Council lapse and that a further
report should not be submitted to the Council. The Chief Executive accepted the
consensus view that this was inappropriate and reported to the Full Council
meeting on 22 February 2016 that Councillor Oladapo was still unable to attend
meetings due to his ill- health. The Council approved the recommendation that
Councillor Oladapo’s absence from meetings be approved on the basis of his
ongoing ill-health subject to review if required at the Annual Council meeting
in May 2016. The report was approved on this basis. The Chief Executive said
that the report was written on the understanding that Councillor Oladapo’s ill
health was ongoing but in fact there had been a deterioration in his health
which resulted in his return to hospital, and by the time of the Council
meeting in February it was believed that he had returned to his family in
Nigeria to pass away. This was not, however, confirmed and so would have been
inappropriate to put in a public report. The Chief Executive’s view is that the
Full Council considered and approved Councillor Oladapo’s ongoing absence in
good faith based on what was known on that date and what was said in the
report.
My
conclusion is that these were very difficult and unusual circumstances – a
young councillor but seriously ill and hospitalised, living on his own with no
partner and no family members living in the UK and who were seemingly
unresponsive to requests for information and uncommunicative about their
relative’s situation. In my view no further or better information could
reasonably have been obtained by the Council about former Councillor Oladapo’s
situation before the Council meeting in February 2016.
3. what, if anything, the Council could have done
differently or better at the time;
Given
all the circumstances as set out in my review it is difficult to see what the
Council could have done differently or better at the time. There was clearly
uncertainty and a lack of reliable information about Councillor Oladapo’s
whereabouts or situation in early 2016 and the Chief Executive had advised at
the pre meeting for the February Council that she considered that the Council
should now let Councillor Oladapo’s membership of the Council lapse and that a
further report should not be submitted to the Council. However, the mood of the
meeting was not to allow Councillor Oladapo’s membership of the Council to
lapse.
4. what, if any, lessons the Council should take
from this experience; and
In my
view the particular circumstances in this case were unique and it is unlikely
that the Council will ever have to deal with a similar case in the future. Each
case should be dealt with on its facts and it is not necessary to devise a
detailed procedure in an attempt to deal with any eventuality that might occur
in an increasingly diverse and complicated world, based on what were a fairly
unique set of circumstances. However, my review has identified some issues that
warrant further consideration as set out in the next paragraph.
5. what, if any, improvements the Council should implement.
i.
the
checks and balances to identify members at risk of breaching the six months
rule already in place (as described in paragraph 2.15 of this Report) seem
appropriate and proportionate.
ii.
the
Council’s current procedure for dealing with proposals for extension of absence
also seems appropriate and should continue, but reports recommending extensions
should be presented to Council only following consultation between the Chief
Executive, the Monitoring Officer, the Head of Member and Executive Services
and the relevant Group Whip. Councillors understandably rely on the content of
those reports in agreeing to the continued absence of a colleague so they need
to be able to rely on the integrity of any such report. it is crucially
important, given the recent experience, that the most reliable information is
obtained by officers and provided in the report. In most cases this will be
quite straightforward but there will be cases in the future when additional
effort by officers is required to establish the facts so far as possible.
iii.
those
members who are potentially likely to breach the six months rule because of
their non-attendance should be given written notice of this by Members Services
as soon as it becomes known through the various checks and balances.
iv.
any
report recommending extension of absence, and in particular the recommendation
itself, should make clear whether the member’s absence is being approved
indefinitely, until a specific date only or perhaps contingent on the member
being required to take some action, for example providing further information.
v.
consideration
should be given as to whether every member of the Council should sit on a sub
committee or committee as well as Full Council to improve the potential for
attendance and thereby avoid the possibility of breaching the six months rule.
This could also obviate the current practice of using the substitution
arrangements to enable members to avoid breaching the six months rule.
vi.
consideration
should be given to whether councillors should be required to provide medical
certificates just as Council staff are required to do to prove the reason for
absence on ill health.
vii.
consideration
should be given as to whether the same approach should be used both in cases of
terminal illness and in cases of continuing ill health.
viii.
consideration
should be given to how cases in which childbirth, both pre and following the
actual birth, is the cause for extended absence should be dealt with, and
whether this applies to members who are partners in such circumstances.
ix.
consideration
should be given to other reasons for potential extension of absence including
the illness of a partner or family member, and work commitments involving
periods abroad
x.
consideration
should be given to the way in which ‘apologies for absence’ are managed.
Currently there is no requirement for the member concerned to tender their
apologies directly or personally as these can be tendered on their behalf by
another member or an officer.
Richard
Penn
