Anger at rejected questions about Brighton councillor expenses

The Friends of Brighton and Hove Citizens Action Group, an informal residents’ group formed after the closure of Madeira Drive during the coronavirus pandemic, said they were being censored by the mayor, Councillor Lizzie Deane.

For the past year, the group has asked a series of questions about councillors’ expenses.

Now, Brighton and Hove City Council has rejected two questions the group planned to ask at the full council meeting on Thursday.

Councillor Lizzie Dean has faced criticism

Following the rejection, the group is asking the council’s chief executive Geoff Raw to intervene – and if unsuccessful, said it would complain to the local government ombudsman.

The questions related to allegations of irregularities in councillor expenses and to the content of minutes of a meeting of the council’s audit and standards committee.

The first, from Nigel Furness, said: “Following your request at the last full council meeting of 21 July, on 30 August, the Friends of Brighton and Hove Citizens Action Group presented you with further evidence of irregularities of councillor expenses, followed up by an electronic copy of the same on 7 September.

“After chasing, on 6 October, you replied that a preliminary investigation had been commenced by the council’s executive director of governance, people and resources.

“Please, can you provide an update on the status of this investigation?”

The second rejected question, from Gary Ayling, said: “At the last full council meeting on 21 July, you presented a report ‘Audit Report on Member Expenses’ and included the following paperwork with your presentation: Minutes from the Audit and Standards Committee meeting on 28 June.

“I have read these minutes and they appear to have either been very heavily redacted or doctored as they do not mention several councillors and their questions that challenged the council’s position at that meeting.

“Will the chair explain this and commit to updating these minutes as soon as possible so that they accurately reflect the record of the meeting?”

The audit and standards committee meeting in June and the full council meeting in July included a debate about Green councillor Alex Phillips’s expenses during her time as mayor.

• READ MORE: Councillor expenses to be released quicker amid fears of 'issues being swept under carpet'

Councillor Phillips was accused of fraud by the action group and by Conservative councillor Anne Meadows over childcare allowances.

She paid up front for a childminder for her young son to cover meetings that were affected by the coronavirus lockdown while she was in France.

In July, the council’s counter-fraud audit manager Simon White told the audit and standards committee there was “no indication” of deception relating to claims for childcare by Cllr Phillips.

The council’s senior lawyer Abraham Ghebre-Ghiorghis blamed oversights and poor organisation rather than dishonesty on Cllr Phillips’s part. Paperwork had gone missing and claims were submitted late, the meeting was told.

• READ MORE: 'Not paying sufficient attention' - audit of ex-mayor's expenses finds overpayment

Laura King, from the Friends of Brighton and Hove Citizens Action Group, said: “This is an unprecedented and anti-democratic ruling by the mayor (Councillor Lizzie Deane) that should be of concern to everyone.

“The mayor is meant to be impartial and allow all residents to have their say but has acted outside of that tradition.

“The fact that the mayor is using an obscure part of the constitution to decide for herself what can and can’t be asked is chilling.

“There is nothing wrong with the questions, which are on extremely relevant and on pertinent issues for the council on a topic that all residents would agree that the council needs serious challenging on.

“It is deeply concerning that in her ruling, the mayor seems to suggest that no further questions will be allowed to be asked again on the topic of expenses by the Friends of Brighton and Hove Citizens Action Group.

“We would point out that if it wasn’t for the questions asked previously by the Friends of Brighton and Hove Citizens Action Group, the failures of the council found by the external audit would never have been exposed.

“It was the Friends who called for this audit and asked questions and presented evidence that led to it being undertaken.”

• READ MORE: Expenses claimed by councillors revealed

Ms King first asked about means-testing expense payments in October last year before asking further questions on the issue in February and July this year.

She added: “We will today write to the CEO of Brighton and Hove City Council and ask for an urgent intervention from him to stop the mayor censoring residents’ voices.

“If this is declined, we will take the matter all the way to the local government ombudsman as this cannot be allowed to stand in the future.”

The council’s head of democratic services, Anthony Soyinka, emailed Mr Furness and Mr Ayling to tell them their questions could not be asked.

He said they were considered inappropriate “taking into account the nature and number of questions on this or a similar topic that have been asked by the Friends

of Brighton and Hove Citizens Action Group”.

Councillor Alex Phillips has faced scrutiny over her expenses

The council said: “Decisions about whether or not to accept questions at the full council are taken by the mayor following advice from officers.

Such decisions are not political. Councillors are not involved in the decision-making.

“Whenever a question is not accepted, we provide the people submitting the question with an explanation of why it has not been accepted.

“The mayor rules on whether or not to accept public questions for full council in accordance with the council’s constitution. This is available on our website.”

Reasons can include:

• It is not about a matter for which the council has a responsibility or which affects Brighton and Hove
• If the meeting to which the question has been addressed is not the appropriate forum
• It is defamatory, frivolous or vexatious
• It is the same or substantially the same as a petition, deputation or public question which has been put at a meeting of a committee or a sub-committee in the past six months
• It requires the disclosure of confidential or exempt information
• It comes from a member of staff on matters affecting them as employees
• It is considered otherwise inappropriate.