Councillor insists on right to cross-examine his accusers
Cllr Esmond Jenkins
Cotswold Liberal Democrats demanded an explanation this week over controversial comments made by CDC Chief Executive David Neudegg only days before Cllr Esmond Jenkins faces a series of complaints over his conduct.
Lib Dem group leader, Cllr Paul Hodgkinson (Churn Valley) accused the Council of launching an orchestrated media campaign which could prejudice the four dayhearing scheduled for next week.
He said: “The fact that the Chief Executive, who has been summoned as a witness, has spoken out criticising Cllr Jenkins in the media makes this a very serious matter indeed.
“There is a real danger that officers are straying over the line into political comment and activity.”
Cllr Jenkins (Water Park) said: “I am astonished that David Neudegg has seen fit to make these statements because I had already notified the council that I require him as a witness.”
He claimed that the marathon investigation sparked by the allegations may havecost up to £500,000 in public funds.
“Public employees at CDC may not be used to being challenged but I am afraid local authority complacency was in large part to blame for the massive Water Park frauds,” said Cllr Jenkins.
“The people of the Water Park elected me to get to the bottom of what was happening and challenging officers about how they did their jobs was part of that process. It was never my intention to offend individuals, merely to hold them to account but it is understandable that some may have taken offence and seen it as disrespect.
“Mr Neudegg and his team can make their allegations if they wish. All I ask is that they have the integrity to stand up and substantiate their claims at the hearing. To this end I am seeking reassurances that the hearing will adhere to even the mostbasic requirements for a fair trial.”
Cllr Jenkins was due to meet the committee Chairman, Martin Jauch, on Wednesday (11 January) to seek assurances that his rights to a fair hearing, enshrined in the European Convention, would be respected.
He asked Mr Jauch to clear up confusion after CDC legal officers ruled that cross-examination of witnesses would not be permitted. However, the Chairman commented to the media that questions would be allowed.
Cllr Jenkins said: “We need to get the ground rules clearly defined in the interests of a fair hearing. All I say is let my accusers come forward and be cross examined, then let the public, the people who pay their salaries, judge if this is money well spent or not.
“I have a dozen CDC officers lined up against me claiming that my actions have been disrespectful to them. I totally refute these allegations but it is essential that they give their evidence under oath and are open to cross examination not only on the claims they make but alsoover their motivation for this concerted attack on my reputation.
“If I am prevented from conducting proper cross-examination or the hearing is conducted in a way that fails to look at the surrounding issues and the relationship between CDC officers and the other complainant against me, a local property developer, I trust the public will make up their own minds over the integrity of the entire process.”
The ethics watchdog, Standards for England, launched the costly and lengthy probe into the councillor after holiday home developer Max Thomas wrote to CDC last year asking for him to be “reined in.
Cllr Jenkins said: “It is highly significant that, following that very clear demand from the boss of the Watermark Group, the council’s Head of Planning decided to make a series of very similar complaints against me.
“She was followed by a number of other officers, most of whom I have had little or no contact with, accusing me of showing disrespect to them.”
The action against Cllr Jenkiins was criticised in the House of Lords in the autumn by Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Tyler, who accused the council of “tying up” the campaigning councillor in a “ludicrously trivial investigation.”
He went on to claim that the standards system governing the conduct of local councillors had been used “as a means to gag those who are simply undertaking the first responsibility of an elected member – to act as a watchdog for the public interest.”
Cllr Hodgkinson commented: “We are very concerned at suggestions that the hearing might be structured in a way that could prevent Cllr Jenkins from raising the surrounding circumstances relating to the Water Park, the acquisition of Keynes Country Park by Watermark and the controversy over the excess infilling at Lake 31.
“These events form the backdrop for the investigation into Cllr Jenkins who is regarded by many in the Water Park as having performed a public service by bringing these matters to the public’s attention and helping to put fraudster, Dennis Grant, in jail.
“To exclude the relevant background from consideration by the tribunal would make a travesty of the whole process.”
