An email sent to a member of the public in response to questions about a controversial Hadleigh council sub-committee where a member admitted being prejudiced against an ex-services job applicant, has been revealed.

Despite a resolution being passed by councillors to make the reply public, Hadleigh town council officials refused to do so, following a further request from a separate town resident, who asked for it to be made available at a monthly meeting nearly two weeks ago.

Although Cllr Schleip has now admitted making the prejudicial remarks following a whistleblower's revelation to Nub News, and apologised to councillors behind closed doors, despite it not being minuted, she has never publicly admitted guilt or offered a public apology.

A member of the public sent in questions regarding an investigation into allegations of prejudice and about a reply to a member of the public being made public and why this has not happened yet.

Town clerk Wendy Brame wrote to the questioner to say Cllr Beggerow's reply was marked confidential and contains personal and sensitive information.

She believes it would be a breach of UK General Data Protection Regulation to disclose this reply due to the contents.

The question related to a query raised by former councillor Angela Gregg during the public forum at a full council meeting on when she asked why an investigation had not been held, especially as it would have cleared up allegations of discriminatory behaviour by her, as well as Cllr Schleip.

Councillor Rolf Beggerow responded to her via email, copying in town council staff and fellow councillors Gavin Talbot, Carol Schleip and made allegations against Mrs Gregg who felt she was being 'bullied' into not pursuing an investigation.

This has prompted Mrs Gregg to place the response from Cllr Beggerow in to the public domain via Nub News.

Mrs Gregg said: "I am allowing this document to be released into the public domain as the council refuse to conduct an investigation into alleged prejudice comments made by Cllr Carol Schleip during an interview process I was party too.

"The council refused to conduct an investigation on the grounds that they could not hold one, however this has been proven to be incorrect.

"They also tried to "hush" me by alleging I had broken rules by asking a candidate about his background.

"In Cllr Beggerow's email it clearly is a bullying tactic to try to bury the situation. However, I wished to clear my name of these allegations and despite asking for a full investigation they refused knowing that this investigation would have to include Cllr Schleip.

"This is not being open and transparent as the council continue to hide matters that should be made public.

"I am now requesting publicly that an investigation is called to investigate the prejudice remarks made by Cllr Schliep, which in my opinion went towards making the wrong decision in hiring the town manager position."

Cllr Beggerow has denied seeking to bully Mrs Gregg and insisted it should not be made public due to its confidential.

He told Nub News: "The email that I sent to former Cllr Gregg was in response to questions she raised as a member of the public in a public meeting that I chaired.

"My email referred to several confidential matters and comments made during a confidential meeting of the HR sub-committee that included myself and former Cllr Gregg and I expected those comments to remain confidential.

"I totally refute the assertion that my email was an attempt to 'bully' Mrs Gregg into dropping the matter regarding comments made by Cllr Schleip that have been reported in the public domain and on which I cannot comment."

Councillor made prejudicial comments against ex service personnel. Full story here.

Cllr Rolf Beggerow's response in full

"Further to your statement from the public forum at last Thursday's Town Council Meeting, as Chair of that meeting, I said we would get back to you. There are number of points I would like to make to you and I trust you not to share this with anyone. A decision has been made on the 21st January 2021 not to carry out an investigation into the alleged disclosure of prejudice against ex members of the armed forces during the discussions of the Staffing Sub Committee. You seem set on a mission by continuing to call for an investigation in the public domain, by making your statement in the public forum of a Town Council meeting asking the Mayor and Councillor Schleip to consider resigning over the matter. I remind you that you yourself started this matter when you sent out an email on 10 December 2020 to all Councillors expressing your concerns with the recruitment process including prejudicial comments made by Councillor Schleip that were then leaked into the public domain. As you know HRSC meetings are confidential and what is said either in discussion before and during interviews should remain confidential to the members of the HRSC. You asked me on 25Th January 2021 for a full copy of all the interview recordings "so I can review my comments & act accordingly". This was after all HRSC members had previously received recordings of the Interviews with the 2 short listed candidates before the HRSC made their decision on the appointment of the Town Council Manager. After consultation it was agreed as a member of the HRSC you were entitled to have a copy of all the recordings in the same confidential manner as the candidate's CV's were issued to us all. I then on 25th January 2021 personally delivered to your house a sealed envelope containing a memory stick with the recordings of all the HR sessions you were involved after having reminded you by email of the need to keep the information confidential. It is now very clear to me that that there has been a breach of trust as we now know Councillor Knock (as he has recently stated on Social Media) has a copy of a recording of what Councillor Schleip said and we also read in Nub News that they have a copy of the recording passed to them by a "Whistle Blower" I would like to remind you why I voted against holding an investigation on 21st January 21. It was primarily to protect you from the possible consequences of remarks that you have made both before, after and during interviews. Now you may feel that all your comments were OK and would be vindicated by an investigation but, on this point, I am certain that if your remarks were ever considered by an Investigation Panel that contained Employment Law experts their conclusion would put you and the Council in serious trouble. Your remarks on gender and some of your comments to candidates would in my opinion be considered far more serious than the remarks that Councillor Schleip made. Whilst personally I have nothing to hide from an investigation, I would not want to put you or the Council into a situation where there was a risk of what you said being quoted in public, with the risk of further Whistleblowing to the media. I would remind you we have taken external advice and received a joint statement from SALC and the Monitoring Officer. We are aware that some members of Hadleigh Town Council have called for an independent investigation into alleged discriminatory comments made by councillors involved in recent recruitment interviews. We have been informed that the two councillors concerned have since admitted making such comments at a meeting of the full Council, one of whom apologised to the Council. Whilst unfortunate, these comments appear to have had no material impact on the outcome of the interviews and we hold the view that there remains nothing of substance to investigate, either from a proceduralor code of conduct perspective. Taking all of the factors into account, we are firmly of the view that it would be a pointless exercise for Hadleigh Town Council to arrange for any further investigation at this stage, and a patent waste of public funds. E. Yule - Monitoring Officer, Babergh & Mid-Suffolk District Councils S. Longmate – CEO, Suffolk Association of Local Councils The Monitoring Officer did confirm this week the Council could set up an Internal Panel of Councillors to investigate other Committees. If the Council felt it was in the public interest to proceed with some form of an internal investigation, we would have to be very careful about how we set the Panels terms of reference, e.g not to breach GDPR and confidentiality rules. I am certain the Panel could not legally listen to any recordings that involved the candidates without obtaining their permission and this is unlikely to given in all cases, particularly now that some of the issues are out in the public domain. The Panel could be tasked to report on specific allegations and only listen to recordings before and after interviews. Maybe they could ask for statements and other evidence from the now dissolved HRSC members. Now I ask myself, and ask I you to do the same, what would be the outcome or benefit of such an investigation? I believe the Panel cannot report its findings in public based on confidential discussions, and as you are no longer a Councillor this presents a barrier to having an investigation. If an Investigating Panel were to report that comments you made were considered discriminatory an unlawful, for example when you said "I think we need a male figure in the Office", remarks that you will recall, drew an immediate reaction at the time from all other members of the HRSC when you said that. I know you argued back at the time your remarks were not discriminatory against any one candidate, but I feel this view would not be upheld in an investigation. It has been established that being a retired member of the military is not a protected characteristic under employment law, so no legal or disciplinary consequences can follow from any adverse references to it, unlike gender. The Panel's Report would be expected to confirm Councillor Schleip's prejudicial comments as already reported in the public domain, comments for which she has acknowledged and apologised. On the matter of the temporary dissolving of the HRSC. In my view this was necessary as it became clear to me having been involved in the recent recruitment process there is a need for improved training before any Councillor becomes a member of an HRSC. The HRSC needed to regroup and not run the risk of a similar issues arising in the future. We need to be sure future members of an HRSC can demonstrate they have taken appropriate training supplemented with suitable experiences in working with the complexities of employment law and being able to work on a strict confidential basis as part of a team that accepts the decisions of the team, even if their views have not prevailed in a vote. I should also point out an inaccuracy in the Nub News report that followed your public statement last week. The report stated the HRSC "was dissolved before you resigned as a Councillor and therefore still had the same members". That statement is not true. You resigned on the 16th March and the HRSC was dissolved on the 18th March. I do hope Angela that after reading this you will appreciate from my perspective there is no "sweeping under the carpet" going on, it may seem that way to you, but for me the matter is best laid to rest to protect you and prevent a distraction to the Council from their desire to focus on the good work they are doing. Councillor Schleip has suffered a lot as a result of the public exposure about her comments and to prolong the matter in the public arena and to continue to pursue the matter by calling for an investigation and resignations is, in my view, not appropriate or fair to the very competent team we now have working for us in the office. Best Regards Rolf"

*What do you think? email [email protected] or comment on our Facebook page.