Earlier this week I wrote this blog about Councillor Hugh Rayner, Chairman of the Business Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee :-
http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2011/04/barnet-council-metpro-scandal.html
I had been informed by a Conservative Council Colleague of Councillor Rayner that in his role as chair of the committee (the one responsible for making sure Barnet Council conducts it's business properly) Hugh was livid about the way the Council had administered the contract. I stated the following :-
Today I received a call from Councillor Rayner. He catagorically stated that he had spoken to NO ONE at all about MetPro and expressed absolutley no opinions on the matter to any living soul. Further more he stated that he was not prepared to state them to me. For the purposes of clarity I asked him to clarify that he'd discussed the matter with no-one. He was happy to confirm that this was the case.
Whilst I may disagree with Councillor Rayner on matters Politic, if he tells me this, I believe him. Hugh acknowledged that I had actually been quite complimentary about him in the blog (if innaccurate). (I must say that I am highly disturbed that the chairman of the Committee responsible for ensuring the Council is properly run, has not had a single conversation with anyone regarding a scandal where £1.2 Million pounds was paid to a company acting illegally. I might charitably suggest that Hugh have a word with his colleagues and Council officials and be brought up to speed as a matter of urgency. Then maybe, he could inform us of his opinion - but that is another matter entirely).
It has lead me to speculate as to why someone would tell me such a thing? Was it to try and give the impression that The Barnet Tories actually were getting a grip and the chairman of the appropriate committee was "on the case?". Was it a machiavellian plot by someone I thought was an ally of Hugh to knobble him with the likes of Coleman. Was it an attempt to test the water in a "plausably deniable" manner, as to how certain colleagues may react? Was it an attempt to sour the usually cordial and friendly relationship between myself and Hugh when we are not discussing matters of politics or Barnet Council? Was it an attempt to smoke out a leaker of information? I'm mystified. Hugh actually visited the shop in a bit of a huff to tell me off today, so clearly he wasn't happy. Maybe someone is after his job, with a round of changes at the top? Whatever the reason as they spoke off the record and Hugh most definitely spoke on the record, we have to trust what he says about this.
As Hugh clearly doesn't want the people of Barnet to think he is disgusted with how the Council has handled the MetPro fiasco, or that he actually discusses such matters with anyone, I am quite happy to issue a full and unreserved apology to Hugh for any distress or offence I've caused. Furthermore, I have undertaken to Hugh to check any such statements from said person in future with him personally, before publishing.
Rather strangely, the original source of the comments has not taken my calls today? I can't possibly think why.
I must say that of all the strange things to happen as a result of the MetPro fiasco, for me personally, this is by far the strangest.
http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2011/04/barnet-council-metpro-scandal.html
I had been informed by a Conservative Council Colleague of Councillor Rayner that in his role as chair of the committee (the one responsible for making sure Barnet Council conducts it's business properly) Hugh was livid about the way the Council had administered the contract. I stated the following :-
I went on to applaud Hugh for recognising the nature of the problem. Given the important role he has in the Council (for which he receives a generous allowance), it seemed like a most positive development.News reaches this blog that Councillor Hugh Rayner, who is Offords right hand man in Hendon and his closest ally has let it be known that he thinks the whole affair is "a massive cock up" and "someone needs to get a grip on it". Furthermore Hugh also agrees with much of what the blogs have been saying. Whilst stopping short of calling for a public enquiry, Hugh has let it be known that "something drastic has to be done to restore faith in the Council" and that in his opinion "heads should roll". Hugh recognises that when the Evening Standard reports that the council gives £1.2 million to a firm operating illegally, something has gone seriously wrong.
Today I received a call from Councillor Rayner. He catagorically stated that he had spoken to NO ONE at all about MetPro and expressed absolutley no opinions on the matter to any living soul. Further more he stated that he was not prepared to state them to me. For the purposes of clarity I asked him to clarify that he'd discussed the matter with no-one. He was happy to confirm that this was the case.
Whilst I may disagree with Councillor Rayner on matters Politic, if he tells me this, I believe him. Hugh acknowledged that I had actually been quite complimentary about him in the blog (if innaccurate). (I must say that I am highly disturbed that the chairman of the Committee responsible for ensuring the Council is properly run, has not had a single conversation with anyone regarding a scandal where £1.2 Million pounds was paid to a company acting illegally. I might charitably suggest that Hugh have a word with his colleagues and Council officials and be brought up to speed as a matter of urgency. Then maybe, he could inform us of his opinion - but that is another matter entirely).
It has lead me to speculate as to why someone would tell me such a thing? Was it to try and give the impression that The Barnet Tories actually were getting a grip and the chairman of the appropriate committee was "on the case?". Was it a machiavellian plot by someone I thought was an ally of Hugh to knobble him with the likes of Coleman. Was it an attempt to test the water in a "plausably deniable" manner, as to how certain colleagues may react? Was it an attempt to sour the usually cordial and friendly relationship between myself and Hugh when we are not discussing matters of politics or Barnet Council? Was it an attempt to smoke out a leaker of information? I'm mystified. Hugh actually visited the shop in a bit of a huff to tell me off today, so clearly he wasn't happy. Maybe someone is after his job, with a round of changes at the top? Whatever the reason as they spoke off the record and Hugh most definitely spoke on the record, we have to trust what he says about this.
As Hugh clearly doesn't want the people of Barnet to think he is disgusted with how the Council has handled the MetPro fiasco, or that he actually discusses such matters with anyone, I am quite happy to issue a full and unreserved apology to Hugh for any distress or offence I've caused. Furthermore, I have undertaken to Hugh to check any such statements from said person in future with him personally, before publishing.
Rather strangely, the original source of the comments has not taken my calls today? I can't possibly think why.
I must say that of all the strange things to happen as a result of the MetPro fiasco, for me personally, this is by far the strangest.
...so Mr Rayner is worried that people might think he was cross about the scandalous way in which the MetPro business has been handled? What? Logically, therefore, he wants us to think he approves of the council's management, or lack of it: why? I think mif I were in his shoes, even if I had not made any comment about the issue, I would be rather pleased that people mistakenly thought I had kicked up a fuss. Dear oh dear, they just don't grasp the important issue here, do they,that what matters is not how they close ranks over embarrassing situations like this, but the rather more pressing concern of why the bloody thing happened in the first place. Pathetic, the whole lot of them: instead of sitting on the MetPro scandal they should be opening up the details to public scrutiny - then, and only then might they earn a tiny splinter of respect back from the electors of this borough.
ReplyDelete