EVEN with the preliminary report pages removed, the draft governance review report isn’t easy reading.

Independent expert David Bowles was appointed in February to look at concerns raised by the-then councillor Ferris Cowper in which he alleged a lack of transparency at the council.

But Mr Bowles says concerns already held by the council leader and chief executive triggered a bigger review with an emphasis on the wider culture, conduct and behaviours of officers and councillors.

During his investigation Mr Bowles interviewed union representatives, internal audit members, 15 councillors and 14 council officers; some were very reticent until their confidentiality was assured, he says.

By July, council leader Richard Millard and chief executive officer Gill Kneller knew the direction of travel of the report, and told the Post they expected it to be ‘highly critical.’

In August they prepared to release Mr Bowles’ preliminary report to the Post via an online briefing on a Friday. The IT didn’t work and the meeting was rebooked for the Tuesday.

By that Tuesday, Cllr Millard had been told if the preliminary report was made public, the council may be sued for defamation by a person, or persons, named in it. The briefing was cancelled.

After Cllr Ferris Cowper suddenly resigned from the council in October, the much smaller draft final report was released.

Among other things, the report’s author wrote said: “The problem is the concerns raised with me had been evident for over a decade and become deep rooted.”

He added the allegations of a significant majority he spoke to suggested a consistent pattern of threatening and intimidation over a considerable period of time towards officers and members.

“Failures such as this can have implications on staff retention, result in employment claims, place staff under stress and lead to improper decision taking processes,” he wrote.

One officer commented there had been a ‘profound’ difference in the atmosphere at the council since Cllr Millard had taken over as leader.

But the officer also said problems remained and more needed to be achieved. Other officers expressed similar views.

Mr Bowles also points out “there were genuinely-held views that giving advice that was not welcome or was challenging would lead to retaliation”.

Among middle managers or more junior staff there were allegations of being shouted at “just answer yes or no” when being questioned about quite complex issues.

There were “alleged and repeated threats to job security,” and allegations of documents being thrown across the room, and tables being hit and thumped.

There were also allegations of ‘instructions’ to sack officers who had acted in accordance with their professional judgement, and genuine belief that some staff left the council because of members conduct.

And there were more allegations some staff had effectively been banned from working at Penns Place, and of a marginalisation of councillors who offered disagreeing views.

Mr Bowles says: “In my view, collectively these allegations amount to accusations, which if proven, would suggest a pattern of threatening and intimidatory conduct and behaviour toward both officers and members.

“If this was an alleged pattern of behaviour carried out by the same (one) individual, it would certainly fall within what I describe as ‘repeated misconduct’.”