Virtual Lancaster

When Lancaster City Council’s Standards Committee meets later this month, Councillor Jon Barry is to be taken to task for talking to the local press about the fate of Lancaster Market.

Council rules allow it to publish a summary of the complaint for public consumption – and, in many cases, name the Councillor involved (unless the Assessment Sub-Committee has concluded that such disclosure is not in the public interest or would prejudice any investigation).

The complaint brought against Cabinet member Coun Barry concerns his naming the now-wound up company, ASCO, as the single retailer approached by Lancaster City Council to take over the lease of the Market building, in a Green Party press release issued on 2nd March (see: “Greens push for revamped, smaller Market”).

The full text of the complaint notes: “The complainant alleged that in a comment on the Virtual Lancaster website on the 2nd March 2010, Councillor Barry identified the company being considered by the Council as a potential single trader tenant for Lancaster Market, thus disclosing confidential information in breach of paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct.”

Coun Barry was, in fact, far from the first person associated with the Council to identify ASCO as a potential partner. virtual-lancaster was already aware of the name of the now wound-up retailer, after a senior member of council staff mentioned the name during a meeting with Market traders on 22nd February.

In addition, the Lancaster Guardian reported that ASCO was ‘believed’ to be the preferred partner in a web story on 28 February, subsequently published in its print edition.

On 3rd March, one day after virtual-lancaster published the Green councillor’s comments, the Morecambe Visitor reported in its print edition that ASCO had been approached. This information was also published as a news story posted online on 2nd March.

ASCO themselves must have helped with that story, which would have been in preparation at least two days previously to meet print deadlines. They even kindly supplied a visual of how the revamped market building might have looked, featured on the paper’s front page.

It seems then, that it is entirely permissible for a commercial parter of the City Council to release confidential information; and for a council staff member to identify that partner; but even though the contested information had clearly been in the public domain for two weeks, a democratically elected Councillor was not allowed to mention the company’s name.

virtual-lancaster challenged the Council in our report and by direct emails to confirm or deny that ASCO was the preferred partner in a news story dated 25th February but we were met with stony silence. No-one from the Council has addressed the concerns we raised in our report about the manner in which Asco won Council preferment as a potential partner. (See “Bending Lancaster City Council to its will: The ASCO File“)

Indeed, it would appear that on every occasion in which the Market has been on the council agenda since 2008, press and public have been excluded and reports and even minutes restricted from public scrutiny.

Market trader Peter Corke told virtual-lancaster on 28th February in on the record email correspondence that Heather McManus, the City Council’s Director of Regeneration, revealed the name of ASCO at a meeting between her, Council leader Stuart Langhorn, some Cabinet members, council staff and market traders.

“What she said was ‘ASCO had been receiving threatening phone calls’,” he told us. “This was the only time at the meeting with other Traders that any of the council officers or councillors actually mentioned ASCO by name.”

Other market traders have confirmed separately that McManus clearly identified ASCO.

That mention was enough for traders to quickly scour the Internet and learn about ASCO’s awkward trading history and the controversial business practices of its former Managing Director Ted Ward, subsequently also reported by virtual-lancaster (See: “Who are ASCO and who backs it?”), and prompt concern and public discussion about just who the Council was considering doing business with. (Former council Conservative leader Roger Mace asked market trader Chris Green, of M Green and Son, for information found on ASCO after the meeting).

It is quite clear that even before the Morecambe Visitor story, and the Green Party press release, ASCO’s involvement in the proposed change of use of the Market building was public knowledge.

Bizarrely, when an official complaint is made against a Councillor and taken up by the Council’s standards Committee, that councillor is not allowed to defend themselves or make public comments on complaints, until the complaint is resolved. However, in issuing summaries of complaints, the Council does points out that that the fact that a complaint has been referred for investigation should not be taken in any way to imply that there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct.

(Complaints against Councillors are often rejected and indeed, one made against Coun John Whitelegg, also cited in summaries of the meeting’s agenda points, has recently been rejected, although it would appear from the public summary that it has taken over a year for the complaints procedure to run its course).

The name of the complainant against Coun Barry has not been identified in the publicly available summary provided by the City Council to local press.

virtual-lancaster considers the complaint against Jon Barry spurious, and a further attempt to deflect criticism from both staff and councillors who lent their support to the ASCO proposal that provoked a storm of protest. Surely it is now time for a much more wide-ranging inquiry into this whole matter: and yet both the Audit Commission and the Council’s own commercial auditors KPMG have rejected such suggestions.

“Obviously every trader in the market was overjoyed in hearing that their businesses were secure for another four years,” says market trader Chris Green of the Full Council’s rejection of the ASCO plan back in March. “However, I’m dismayed that 19 councillors still thought that ASCO were a viable alternative, even after receiving information which clearly showed that this was an insolvent company.

“After taking professional advice, it is my understanding that any local authority cannot enter into a business arrangement with an insolvent firm. Let’s face it, it’s not rocket science.”

• Standards Committee meets on Thursday 17th June at 10.00am at Lancaster Town Hall. Separate complaints against Councillors Dennison, Marsland, Burns, Ashworth, Wade and Kerr and Keith Sowden will also be considered.

Update: by Satori

On Tuesday 15 June, responding to a question from Virtual-Lancaster as to whether disciplinary procedures similar to those being applied to Cllr Barry were being considered against Corporate Director Heather McManus, Lancaster City Council issued the following unattributed statement:

“At the meeting on February 22 it was clear that traders already believed they knew the identity of the single trader and it was they that raised the name of the company. The traders were told at the meeting that the name of the trader could not be confirmed or denied and any mention by a council officer of the company name was made in this context.

“At no time has any council officer revealed details of the exempt information which was provided to Cabinet or Council, either during a meeting or an informal discussion. Any suggestion to the contrary is both incorrect and defamatory and this allegation should be immediately removed.”

Following that meeting subsequent issues of all the local press rushed to publish confident reports on the planned deal with Asco, as detailed above, and Asco, presumably believing it was no longer bound to confidentiality, then itself released confirmatory details to the Morecambe Visitor.