Issue - meetings

To consider the Public Interest Report provided by Grant Thornton.

Council received a report of the Chief Executive that responded formally to the Public Interest Report recently issued by Grant Thornton, who acted as the external auditors for Cheshire East Council from 2012/13 to 2017/18.

Following an introduction by the Chief Executive, Members were invited to ask questions of the representatives of Grant Thornton, who were in attendance at the meeting, in relation to the factual content of the Public Interest Report.   The questions and responses given are appended.

On conclusion of the question-and-answer session the Leader and Deputy Leader proposed and seconded the recommendations contained in paragraph 3 of the report of the Chief Executive.

Members debated the report and recommendations. During the extensive debate various comments were made, including the following.  Members:

• welcomed the report and stated that it was right that the public had insight into the events of seven years ago.
• asked why the report was being released now and who would be meeting the cost of the report.
• expressed concern that some former officers had not been contacted by Grant Thornton as part of their investigation.
• made a comparison with the Lyme Green report, which had been heavily redacted when the Council had published it.
• expressed concern that Cabinet members at the time failed to act in response to bullying behaviour and that this behaviour was adopted by other members.
• noted that bullying behaviour had not just been experienced by officers, but had also extended to members of the public.
• expressed concern action had not been taken sooner to remove the then Leader.
• made reference to the LGA report of 2018 which had highlighted a bullying culture, and that the LGA Peer Review report of 2020 which reported that the culture of the council had been transformed.
• stated that the events complained of would not happen again, as officers were now empowered to “call-out” and challenge poor behaviour.
• noted that there was a lasting impact on staff, past and present, of the bullying behaviour and the legacy of the actions.
• expressed support for Internal Audit officers’ action at the time but raised concern that their then line mangers were the Statutory Officers who were performing poorly during the period of the report.
• expressed concern that the standards regime was inadequate in terms of how it would have dealt with behaviours of the former Leader and that the standards regime should include sanctions against those who broke the code.
• noted that the revised Code of Conduct included the declaration of personal interests.
• the Council needed to learn from the mistakes identified to avoid them being repeated.
• noted that the Council had changed politically, culturally, and structurally since the period of the report.

On conclusion of the debate, a request for a named vote was made.  

The Deputy Mayor proposed that a vote be taken on Recommendations 3.1 and 3.2 together, and a separate vote be taken on Recommendations 3.3 and 3.4 together.

A named voted as taken on Recommendations 3.1 and 3.2 with the following results:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64