Significant concerns have emerged over the handling of a bullying complaint against Councillor Philip Burford in the Forest of Dean District, with the total cost to taxpayers surpassing £62,000. The prolonged investigation and its expensive price tag have sparked calls for clearer protocols and better oversight in council complaint procedures.
Councillor Burford, an Independent representative for Hartpury and Redmarley, was officially censured and banned from committee service for three years last December following findings that his behavior towards council staff amounted to bullying and caused considerable distress.
However, the drawn-out process — spanning from the initial complaint in March 2023 to its resolution in December — raised questions about efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The total expenditure stood at £62,565, comprising £43,868.25 for a private investigation led by Barbara Beardwell, £14,075 for barrister advice, £2,857.50 for other legal fees, £1,464.85 for training for standards panel members, and £300 for the panel’s expenses.
READ MORE: Rising Tensions Put RAF Fairford at Risk Amid Iran-UK Conflict Escalation
READ MORE: MP Opposes Controversial Plan for Massive New Housing Developments on A417 and A40
At a recent audit and governance committee meeting, Chief Executive Nigel Brinn highlighted that the investigation became complicated when the then-monitoring officer, Sian Roxborough, recused herself due to a conflict of interest. Despite this, Roxborough remained involved in aspects of the case, including reviewing and commenting on the draft investigator’s report—raising serious concerns about impartiality and propriety.
Chairman Harry Ives criticized the continued engagement of a conflicted officer and attributed the high costs to the decision to appoint an external investigator rather than utilizing internal resources like the council’s counter-fraud unit. He said, “I suspect the total cost would have been less if it had been funnelled through the counter-fraud unit.”
Councillor Julia Gooch questioned the decision-making process behind commissioning the external investigator and whether any cost limits were set. Chief Finance Officer Andrew Knott acknowledged the difficulty in pre-setting budgets but emphasized the importance of providing adequate resources for a fair process.
The investigation’s timeline also drew criticism for its excessive length. Councillor Trevor Roach highlighted that bullying reportedly began in 2015 but only led to formal action eight years later. He underscored the damaging effects that such delays have on staff and expressed concern about why bullying complaints took so long to be addressed. The council’s constitution permits complaints beyond the usual three-month limit only under exceptional circumstances such as bullying or harassment, yet the delay still prompted scrutiny.
Brinn stressed the complexity of bullying and harassment cases, which often evolve gradually and involve multiple complainants, but acknowledged the need for quicker resolution to avoid reliance on fading memories and to reduce stress on those involved.
Responding to these issues, the council agreed on several recommendations: if a monitoring officer is recused, the chief executive must ensure they play no further role in the matter; biannual training should be provided for councillors and officers; internal investigation routes should be fully explored before engaging external resources; and if external support is required, robust project management must be established to control costs effectively.
Councillor Burford has declined to comment on the matter.