Tuesday 2 October 2018

Dysfunctional Broads Authority Continues Persecution of Whistleblowers


The dysfunctional and unaccountable Broads Authority plumbed new depths last week, as they took the extraordinary step of removing me from the Navigation Committee - for telling the truth about members being misled.

Disappointing as this might be from a personal perspective, however, the more important issue is the Broads Authority’s continued determination to cover up wrong-doing and incompetence, their contempt for free speech, and the censuring of whistle blowers.

For 16 months, the Broads Authority has expended what must be considerable sums of public money on investigating my blog posts - involving not one but two barristers. But, instead of looking into my “very serious” claims,  all they’ve investigated is whether I breached their internal code of conduct by making them.

It’s obvious that they know what I said was true; why else would they have spent so long avoiding the questions and finding time-consuming ways of shooting the messenger instead? If John Packman had really believed I was wrong, he would have revelled in proving it. Instead, he refused to meet me and argued semantics like whether a mooring is a mooring when a boat isn’t tied to it.

Having spent money on a barrister, you would expect the BA to take their advice. But the barrister’s recommendation was for an informal resolution, rather than disproportionate sanctions. There should be talks, and reconciliation. And that obviously didn’t fit with the Authority’s overall objective, so they refused to meet me and altered the complaints procedure to remove informal resolution as an option.

This meant taking the complaint to a full hearing, with a Panel made up of the same people who brought the complaint in the first place.  Can there be a more obvious breach of the rules of natural justice - which require there to be no appearance of bias, and for nobody to be a judge in their own case?

Continuing this theme of transparency, they refused to hold the hearing in public, refused to allow a recording to be made and refused to allow me to cross examine the officers who misled the members. And then took a week to issue a decision, which should have been made on the same day.

That decision ignored the advice of the independent investigator, and instead proposed a raft of sanctions personally requested by the Chief Executive, who should not even have been involved in the process.

I was given 7 days to retract my statements, apologise to all concerned, remove the blog articles and promise never to do it again. If I failed to comply, they would remove me from the Navigation Committee - in breach of the Broads Acts, the Localism Act and their own constitution.

I did not comply, because I will not be bullied into retracting the truth and supporting a cover up.  And so, last Friday, just two days after their deadline expired, the Chairman of the Authority asked members to vote to remove me.

My offence was a failure to show “leadership” - which according to the Broads Authority means promoting confidence in itself and its officers at all times. This is pretty much the opposite of the definition of leadership in the Nolan Principles of public life, which requires members to challenge poor behaviour.

In an unelected quango like the BA, considerable trust is placed in members by stakeholders - who rely on them to challenge and scrutinise the advice and recommendations of the officers, to protect the public interest. I have presented clear evidence of wrong doing - anyone reading the articles can tell that members were misled - but, unfortunately, the majority of members seem more interested in protecting the reputation of the Authority than they are in investigating poor behaviour. Because they are trained to believe that’s what they must do.

This Authority is utterly out of control. They would sooner remove a member than admit that they got something wrong, and in any event it is simply not in their gift to remove an appointed member of the navigation committee. But they did it anyway - because there is nobody to stop them.

This leaves toll payers with one less voice on the navigation committee for the next 6 months, until the next round of appointments. And it sends a clear message to stakeholders, local authorities and government that the BA can - and will - do anything it likes.

18 comments:

  1. Truly appalling, James. You are not the first person to butt heads with the unaccountable Executive at the BA.
    I've said elsewhere that I wish there were something I could do to help, but I couldn't think of anything. Well, maybe there is.

    I will this morning forward a copy of this blog post to my MP and ask him to call for a formal judicial review of the Authority's decision in this case and to consider whether a wider full public enquiry into goings on there over past years is merited. They had a peer review, which was not flattering, and appear to have ignored the whole thing. I call for other readers of this who have sympathy for your situation to do the same thing.
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dont quite understand the politics of how these people have this sort of power with out recourse. who is in control of these people? Is there a government body in control? who do we complain to with out going to the BA?. this has been going on for years and needs to be stoped.

      Delete
    2. HiTony or Kaz. You have the central issue. National Park bodies and the Broads were set up outside the normal framework for government bodies, the idea being that they are free of political influence. The Board members (the Authority) are mostly appointed by DEFRA and are supposed to direct the Executive (the civil servants) and hold them accountable for what they do. Having appointed the Boards, DEFRA is then 'hands off' with regard to the performance of the local "Park".

      The problem with this arrangement is that the civil servants are permanent and the Board members are temporary, and sometimes have very little knowledge of the area. They also tend to be academics with little understanding of organizations and how they should be run. A civil servant CEO who is a control freak could easily manipulate the Board, even if he or she is pretty awful at their job. Nobody wants to make a public stink, apart from a few brave souls.

      We aren't alone. Several NPs have had severe governance issues. There is a systemic issue. But it's amplified here because of the tiny area, its intensive use and the fact that our landscape is entirely man-made and thus really needs large inputs of energy to maintain it as is.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Words fail me, James.....
    You have my utter admiration for standing up to this intolerable behaviour and thanks from us all.
    John Redford

    ReplyDelete
  4. Agreed, a big thanks from all who love the Broads... keep fighting!

    ReplyDelete
  5. It seems that the BA goes from bad to worse and is now about to reach depths unheard of in a so called civilised western democracy. The BA seems intent on following the leadership style of North Korea. You have my full support, but I am at a loss as to how to give that support. The BA are an unelected and unaccountable body, behaving in a way that is to the detriment of the majority of people on the Broads.

    ReplyDelete
  6. James we were at WRC last night and I wish we had managed a chat. This is utterly appalling and as unconstitutional as ever. There is no independent method of whistle blowing except public forum. Sadly... terribly sad news.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Did any of the 'members' stand up for James or was the decision to eject him unanimous? This regretful saga simply highlights the shortcomings of an unwelcome Authority and the control that its CEO has amassed for himself, he has to go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there was one against, and maybe 2 or 3 abstentions. 12 were in favour.

      Delete
  8. James, you and Len should take this to the highest levels!
    This stinks and should be put be right. Tell the EDP and all the other rags too.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Regime Change is a difficult concept these days for in recent years it has not always worked out well, but I am with Peter: The conduct of the Chief Executive is unconscionable and if he has a shred of decency he would step down. However, knowing him as I do I'm not holding my breath. I've reached the conclusion that his motivation these days can only be the hope of some sort of gong when he retires - for services to the theft of Norfolk perhaps - and frankly I personally would be content to see him elevated to the peerage - if only he would clear-off!

    ReplyDelete
  10. James you have my full support - I have only been boating for 9 years but in that time the reputation of Mr Packham and his goon organisation has continued to diminish amongst many of my boating colleagues for exactly this sort of self preserving, non-transparent behavior. I was pleased when I saw that you had been appointed to the Committee as river users, in whatever form, need a voice against this dictatorial "Authority" who for some reason clearly wish to force boats elsewhere. Its a pity toll payers and stakeholders don't have a say as Im sure that would result in a vote of no confidence. Good for you for sticking to your guns!

    ReplyDelete
  11. It appears that the barristers didn't come up with the answers the CEO wanted so he/members went against their advice! I shall be writing to my MP, as I hope everyone else will!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hear hear, Sue! It is vitally important that people express their feelings to local MPs. They are the only people who can put any kind of pressure on DEFRA.

      Delete
  12. James, well done. All I can say is that fat lady hasn't sung yet. This is a truly despicable episode. Cark! Cark!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Good for you James, keep at it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've felt deeply sceptical towards the Broads Authority since it was formed. At first they tried to claim their area was equivalent to a National Park. They dropped this as soon as it was pointed out to them that the public weren't unaware of the fact that the ecological responsibilities that apply to national parks would mean - among many other things - that Brooms boats would have to stop using the Yare downstream of Brundall for speed testing (which has eroded metres of riverbank away).

    In 1989/90, Jonathan Peel was the chairman of the BA and Timothy Colman was chairman of Norfolk County Council. They were both trustees of the Colman family trust, called the Arminghall Settlement. Responsibility for determining planning applications for mineral extraction rested jointly between the two authorities. When Timothy Colman applied for permission to dig out £10million worth of gravel from Whitlingham marshes, it was these two authorities - headed by the trustees of the trust that owned the land and which would benefit from the cash generated - which granted permission, despite the so-called ecological survey they had carried out being shown to be highly deficient.

    A key breeding habitat for snipe and lapwing was thus destroyed, and to this day the Broads Authority trumpets the whole scheme as a great success.

    So, the way you have been treated doesn't surprise me at all, I;m sorry to say. This sham of a public body needs to be made into what it pretends to be.

    ReplyDelete