Maladministration at Local Authority

Work carried out in name of a local authority, allegedly for the visit of the Lieutenant Governor, was likely done to allow farmers to gain better access to their land.

A report, which found that Patrick Commissioners’ handling of a complaint about the issue amounted to maladministration will go to Tynwald this month.

In February this year, a couple only referred to as Mr and Mrs N, emailed the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration, to say that in January a digger had caused ‘significant’ damage to their property.

They said that there were two men working with the digger and one of them introduced himself as being from Patrick Commissioners when Mrs N asked them to stop.

She was later told by the clerk that the work wasn’t authorised by the local authority.

In the weeks following, there are several exchanges around the damage caused and one where the local authority changed its position to say it had done the work.

During her investigation, Angela Main Thompson received an email from the DoI which said that ‘commissioner X had stated that “the work was being undertaken by the Commissioners …. to help facilitate the Governor’s visit to the parish’.

The DoI added that the Commissioners had ‘undertaken work without any authority to do so’.

At a meeting in August, the clerk said that he was ‘unaware of any issues with the road before July 2021’.

Ms Main Thompson’s report said: ‘He [the clerk] was aware that Commissioner X favoured its re-opening but this would require widening the road and re-surfacing it which DoI were not prepared to do.’

It added: ‘The clerk feared that the resolution of the problem could prove very expensive and cause serious financial difficulties to a small local authority.

‘In this connection, he told me that when the annual accounts were prepared, he learnt that Commissioner X had authorised expenditure, mainly in respect of highways, of which he, as Clerk, had been unaware. None of the accounts were large in themselves but cumulatively they had made an unexpected dent in the budget.’

Ms Main Thompson said that she had asked the clerk for further information about the account for the digger driver, but he said that the bill hadn’t been paid and that there had been no proper estimate.

Instead, commissioner X had informed a meeting that he had found someone to do the work at an hourly rate of £45 which, providing they were competent and the bill came to less than £1,000 the clerk was able to authorise.

October

Following talks between the DoI, Patrick Commissioners and Mr and Mrs N, agreement was reached over the installation of new gates and a hawthorn hedge to stabilise the lower bank, while the boundary issue had also been resolved.

However, Ms Main Thompson reported that she later received an email from the head of highways and asset management at the DoI who had had received a request for information from a surveyor, who had been instructed by commissioner X.

The surveyor stated that: ‘[Commissioner X] undertook some work in January to widen to the road by digging in to the uphill bank over a 20 metre length, which then provided him (and two other farmers) some access by vehicular – quad bikes and the like – so they could farm their land more effectively.’

The DoI pointed out that it had originally been told the works were for the visit the Governor.

The DoI civil servant added: ‘I am actually surprised by this version that the works were carried out for personal reasons to provide [commissioner C] and two other farmers some access to their farms. It is totally unacceptable for individuals to carry out works on a government asset for personal benefit.’

Ms Main Thompson said she shared the DoI’s concern and added that if what the surveyor had said was true ‘and I can think of no reason why he should invent commissioner X’s motives’, then it was ‘indeed unacceptable’.

She said: ‘In other jurisdiction, where the offence exists, it might amount to misfeasance in public office. It is certainly an abuse of office, particularly because commissioner X submitted an account from the contractor for the work done, claiming 10 hours for the first day and nine hours on the second day, a total of £855, which seem long working days outdoors in January.’

She said that there was no evidence that the authority had given a green light for the work.

However, when considering how the authority handled the complaint from Mrs N, Ms Main Thompson found the delays and overall handling of the complaint ‘amounted to maladministration’.

She said that she had ‘little confidence that without external intervention the required decisions will be made and appropriate action taken to enable DoI to carry out the works it is prepared to do’.

While considering the actions of the DoI, Ms Main-Thomspon said that she has asked it to consider whether its advisory powers are sufficient or ‘whether statutory powers are necessary to suspend or remove a commissioner for reasons, other than a criminal conviction’.

She concluded: ‘Finally the LGU should look critically at the guidance it gives about the obligations of Councillors and Commissioners and how they conduct themselves in office to ensure conformity with the Seven Principles of Public Life. I stress that I make these suggestions as a request to DoI and not as a direction.’

You can read the full report on the Tynwald Register of Business.