English: The Welbourne Centre, Chesnut Road - here used for one day as a local polling station.

Part 2 of a series of eight photos with comments.

◄ Part One  │  Part Three  ►

_____________________________

Standards for England (previously called the Standards Board for England) was part of the system for investigating complaints about elected local councillors.

The slogan on its website used to be: "Confidence in local democracy".

On 24 September 2008, it published a report about a complaint it received on 10 March 2008, concerning Haringey councillor Charles Adje. A summary of its report used to be available on the Standard Board's website, Though the full report was not publicly available.

As one more of its contributions to secrecy and lack of public accountability, after two years, Standards for England removed even summaries of cases where a breach was found. So by December 2010 when I updated this page, a search for Haringey cases showed none listed.

So below here is the summary about Cllr Charles Adje.

══════════════════════════════════════ Case Summary - London Borough of Haringey Case no. SBE21513.08 Member(s) : Councillor Charles Adje Date received : 10 Mar 2008 Date completed : 24 Sep 2008

Allegation : The member disclosed confidential information.

Standards Board outcome : The ethical standards officer found that no action needs to be taken.

Case Summary

The complainant alleged that Councillor Charles Adje, the London Borough of Haringey’s cabinet member for resources, disclosed confidential information to a solicitor. The information was part of a draft report to the Cabinet Advisory Board, which outlined options for the future of the Welbourne Community Centre and the site on which it stands, both owned by the council.

It was also alleged that Councillor Adje may have unfairly advantaged the occupants of the site, given that parts of the report referred to confidential financial information about the rival bids and the site’s value.

Councillor Adje disclosed information from the report to a local solicitor, from whom he sought independent legal advice about the status of the site occupant’s tenancy with the council. He did not seek any specific agreement from the solicitor to keep the report’s contents confidential.

The ethical standards officer considered that it was reasonable for Councillor Adje to have disclosed the information in order to obtain confidential legal advice, and therefore did not consider that Councillor Adje was trying improperly to advantage the site occupant.

However, the ethical standards officer did consider that Councillor Adje breached the Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information without getting his solicitor to agree formally that it would remain confidential and not be further disclosed.

The ethical standards officer found that although Councillor Adje had breached the Code of Conduct, no further action was necessary.

The ethical standards officer copied her final report on this investigation to the London Borough of Haringey’s standards committee, in order to help the committee in its role of promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct among members.

The ethical standards officer advised the standards committee to review the guidance available to members aimed at helping them to understand their responsibilities in relation to confidential information. In particular, the guidance should state that any member who wishes to disclose confidential information to seek professional advice should first obtain an agreement from the third party not to disclose the information further.

The guidance should also state that the member should confirm with the adviser that there is no conflict of interest between the council and any of the adviser’s other clients. If there is such a conflict, the member should consider using another adviser. Although this is not required by the Code of Conduct, it would prevent members from putting themselves into a position where others could question their motives and where they could be responsible, however unwittingly, for sensitive information unfairly benefiting a third party, for example in bidding for a council contract.