A Cornwall councillor says a clerical error by the council damaged his reputation, and he is demanding a public apology.
Luke Rogers, the Liberal Democrat member for St Ives East, Lelant and Carbis Bay, faced criticism at a meeting of the council's west sub-area planning committee last month. He had asked that an application for nine new homes in Carbis Bay be considered by the committee rather than planning officers because of public concerns. But he was not at the meeting to speak for the five minutes allotted to local members and was not available to answer questions.
Recent planning meetings have seen comments criticising local members who call applications to committee but then do not show up in person or online to explain their reasons.
Committee chair Brian Clemens, who says he will make a statement at the next meeting, acknowledged there was "confusion" and an internal IT error, but said Rogers had received other correspondence with the correct date and time. During July's meeting, Clemens said no apology had been sent for Rogers' absence. "It is unacceptable in my opinion if somebody brings something to committee and doesn't speak. It doesn't help the residents and it doesn't help this committee," he said.
Mike Thomas added: "The issues Cllr Rogers has raised are very interesting – he's written a good item for us to read and I have plenty of questions that I wanted to put to him. I feel cheated that I can't have that opportunity."
Rogers has now written to the committee and council officers, blaming the committee's admin team for giving him the wrong date and demanding a public apology. His letter says the public criticism suggested he had failed in his responsibilities, and that media reports caused "unnecessary damage to my reputation and creating the false impression that I chose not to attend a meeting that I had specifically requested. That impression is entirely incorrect."
He wrote: "The sole reason I was absent was because I was provided with the incorrect meeting date by the committee administration. The invitation issued by the committee admin contained the wrong date, which I entered into my diary automatically. I therefore believed the meeting was taking place the following day. My absence was the direct result of an administrative error by Cornwall Council, not any failure or lack of commitment on my part.
"This makes the public criticism I received particularly unacceptable. Before members publicly questioned my conduct, no effort appears to have been made to establish why I was absent. Had a simple enquiry been made, the committee would have discovered that the fault lay within its own administrative processes.
"More importantly, this error did not simply affect me personally. It deprived the residents of Carbis Bay of the representation they were entitled to expect from their elected member. I requested committee determination because of the significant level of public concern and because I believed the planning issues deserved proper public debate.
"Through no fault of my own, I was prevented from representing those residents because of an administrative mistake made by the authority itself."
Rogers said the comments compounded "reputational damage" and demanded an "unequivocal apology" plus confirmation that steps will be taken to ensure "similar administrative failures do not occur again".
Clemens said there had been "confusion" caused by an internal IT error that put the wrong date on Rogers' Outlook calendar, but that Rogers had also received three correspondences with the correct date and time. He added that a planning meeting could not have been held on the incorrect date as it clashed with a full council meeting. Clemens will make a statement at the start of the next west sub-area committee meeting.
Rogers responded: "I understand that mistakes happen and I appreciate that. What I found frustrating was how quickly some councillors were prepared to criticise publicly rather than simply picking up the phone and asking where I was.
"In this case, although other correspondence may have referred to a different date, I relied on the official Cornwall Council diary entry which showed the meeting on the Tuesday. I've always trusted the council's diary system and have never had any reason to question it before, so it didn't occur to me to double-check it against other correspondence."
Cornwall Council error blamed for member’s ‘reputational damage’