By Carmelo Garcia – Local Democracy Reporter
There are concerns over a council “cover-up” after a complaint over the conduct of a mystery councillor who features in a counter fraud probe report has been blocked because their identity is not known.
A counter fraud investigation was launched in October last year after whistleblowing concerns were raised over procurement at Cotswold District Council.
The Liberal Democrat-led council awarded more than £80,000 worth of work to companies with alleged undeclared links to officers and a councillor.
The counter fraud and enforcement unit looked into allegations that three companies were engaged outside of the contract rules.
The concern was that three firms were targeted due to undeclared relationships/connections by those officers and the councillor involved in their procurement.
One of the three cases looked into related to the commission of rebranding work for the council.
Of the three proposals received by the council, one was a recommendation from an unnamed councillor but the one which was awarded the work was recommended by an unnamed council officer.
The report says the appointment of that firm was on the basis of an evaluation of quotations and proposals received from the three companies.
However, the evaluation was not in accordance with the council’s procurement processes.
There was no award criteria specified, evaluation was undertaken by a single officer and was not checked independently prior to the award of contract.
A contract exists which has been signed by the company but it was not signed by the District Council.
And the authority’s legal services, finance and the wider corporate leadership team were not consulted on the procurement of that firm’s services.
Council leader Mike Evemy (LD, Siddington and Cerney Rural) refused to reveal the councillor’s identity when asked at a recent meeting saying he did not believe the report identified fault with the councillor.
However, the Conservative opposition believe there is evidence of multiple breaches of the code of conduct. They have since lodged a conduct complaint against the unnamed councillor but this has been blocked.
Officers say they cannot consider the complaint as they have not identified a specific councillor in the complaint.
Tory group leader Tom Stowe (Campden and Vale) said: “The farce of the mystery councillor ‘cover-up’ continues.
“Cotswold District Council will not be processing our formal code of conduct complaint as we have not identified a specific councillor in the complaint – however they won’t tell us who the mystery councillor is.”
He said the authority seems intent on continuing to attempt to cover up the identity of this mystery councillor and the true extent of their involvement in the procurement irregularities summarised in the recent counter fraud and enforcement unit report.
“It is clearly in the public interest to know who this councillor is and what role they are currently playing in local government.
“If the councillor in question has done nothing wrong – then why not disclose their identity? What are they trying to hide?
“There seems to have been several potential breaches of the councillor’s code of conduct, but Cotswold District Council are refusing to investigate our complaint as we have not directly named the councillor in question– however, Cotswold District Council won’t disclose the identity of the Councillor so we don’t know who it is, we’re stuck in a Catch-22.
“Until this information is disclosed the spectre of uncertainty is going to linger over Cotswold District Council and speculation about what is being hidden will continue to fester.”
A spokesperson for Cotswold District Council said they are unable to progress the complaint as it stands as no councillor has been named in it.
“In accordance with the Localism Act 2011, Local Government Association Guidance, and the council’s ‘Code of Conduct Complaint Handling Arrangements’ – approved by Full Council on September 25, 2024 – the council can only investigate Code of Conduct complaints against one or more named councillors who were in office at the time of the alleged conduct.
“We are therefore unable to progress this complaint, as it stands.”