Lets look at the complaints then.
Whether Coun Mutton’s conduct was unacceptable
We find there’s insufficient evidence to show Coun Mutton’s behaviour was unacceptable.
Whether the councillors had made inappropriate or defamatory comments.
We do not consider that the comments made by either councillor amounted to a breach of the code of conduct.
He admits to the comments attributed to him and chanting SISU Out at the Ricoh! How much more open and shut could it be?
Whether the relevant interests had been declared by Coun Mutton.
We have concluded that Coun Mutton did not fail to disclose his interests”.
This is an easy one. Even Goacher had a problem with this "in other authorities it wouldn’t have had to have been registered, but under Coventry’s code it should have been".
So the independent expert states that under the council's code of conduct Mutton failed to disclose an interest yet the committee say he did not.
Failure by councillors to make a decision objectively and in without bias.
We find there was no failure to make decisions in an objective and unbiased way.”
Another easy one for me. I really don't see much of an argument against there being a council bias against SISU. Sure SISU's actions might have pushed them down that path but as a council they need to rise above that, hence why they have a code of conduct in place. Can anyone really keep a straight face and say CCC were not biased against SISU?
Whether there was a public smear campaign against the football club’s owners
We have concluded there is no evidence that councillors instigated a public smear campaign against the complainants.”
A key point here is that Goacher states that ACL and CCC have to be viewed as separate entities despite CCC owning 50% of ACL and CCC having representation on the ACL board. This is of course at odds with his insistence in the first hearing that it was impossible to view CCFC and SISU as two separate entities. This despite emails from council officers stating CCC was “going on the offensive with Sisu”. Cllr Andrews questioned why this wasn't gone into in more depth. The response from Goacher was that discussions might have taken place in non-minuted meetings with no records, he didn't even bother to check!
There are emails from Weber Chadwick discussing a “PR strategy”, along with emails suggesting Seppala's home address is made known and the suggestion that she be doorstepped by the local media. Cllr Andrews, the only non Labour person on the committee, said he found the emails “disturbing”.
The defence for Mutton and Lucas appears to be solely that, as leaders of CCC, they had absolutely no idea what was going on and therefore can't take any responsibility.
I'm really struggling to see how the council are in the clear on any of these points let alone all of them. If you read the councils code of conduct there's numerous cases of the code being breached during this whole affair that come to mind.
Of course that isn't to say SISU's behaviour was any better but unfortunately as a private company they can do what they like as long as they stay on the right side of the law. CCC however should adhere to their code of conduct.
You missed one of the points out for starters. They alleged that Mutton had said that SISU was a predator with greed running through it's DNA. It was Ainsworth that said it with parliamentary privilege. They put so much on it to make him look like his conduct was unacceptable.
They never came out with true comments on what the two had said that amounted to a breach of the code of conduct. Singing SISU out during a game wasn't making comments on behalf of CCC. Just like whoever joined in didn't do it on behalf of their employer. Wasn't a wise thing to do though.
Public smear campaign? It was Lucas that kept asking for talks. The bad feeling was caused by SISU.
You say that Mutton never declared his interests. He did each year until 2012. So nothing was hidden.
There was a PR strategy. It could have been done much better. But by the sound of it there is nothing unusual with it from local authorities. Not happy with it myself.
Mutton and Lucas can't be held responsible for what others might have said. And it is a might to me after how much SISU made of the DNA comment and made it one of the six complaints when he didn't even say it.
The most telling comment for me was when he said that this was about ethics and not for SISU to go on a fishing trip. And if you are truthful you must have thought that it is what it was all about.
