COUNCILLORS have criticised use of ‘intimidating and unpleasant’ non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) used by Winchester City Council.

It has been revealed that the council has been sending out NDAs to members of the authority to allow them to read confidential documents.

More recently, they were used to allow councillors to receive exempt sections of the Central Winchester Regeneration report.

The first draft of these indemnity provisions, which meant that councillors would be financially liable for any loss that the council suffers.

Conservative councillor Hugh Lumby asked the council at a recent council meeting how many members signed the agreement.

READ MORE HERE: Civic chiefs rescind proposal to transfer River Park Leisure Centre in Winchester

In a reply, he was told that 12 members signed an NDA with those indemnity provisions, two members signed a modified form of NDA – none of these were cabinet members.

Cllr Lumby said: “We have a mess right now and we do really need to get on and sort it out. The indemnity, it says basically that you are liable for any loss that the council suffers way beyond. You don't have to mitigate, you don't have to evidence the loss you've incurred, so you (councillors) just get a bill for it and that is really intimidatory and unpleasant and we shouldn't be doing it.”

His comments came after fellow Tory councillor Stephen Godfrey proposed a motion to make the council more transparent.

SEE ALSO: Current location of fly-tipping surveillance cameras in Winchester revealed

It included properly consulting all councillors and the public before making any significant decisions about council projects or other major financial transactions, publishing papers that were marked exempt after 12 months of a decision being made – unless council decides they should remain confidential.

Recording the discussions, submissions and decisions at all meetings attended by any person outside the council and stopping the use of NDAs.

Cllr Godfrey said: “Legalisation already exists that prohibits councillors from disclosing information in documents identified as being restricted. Demanding that councillors sign a non-disclosure agreement, particularly when they include a clause that seeks to indemnify the council from any consequential loss or damage is wholly unnecessary and heavy handed.”

Cllr Brian Laming said finds it “extremely insulting” being asked to sign an NDA, and Cllr Frank Person said: “To say I was a tad upset about this implication that I could not be trusted without any sort of background or reasoning for that statement quite frankly I found insulting.”

SEE ALSO: Changes to Andover Road closure plans at Kings Barton

An amendment was proposed by Cllr Neil Cutler to refer the motion to the audit and governance committee to look at legality, and practical and resource implications.

Cllr Martin Tod said that while he understood the intent of the motion, he had concerns around the practicalities. He urged for clarity on the kind of decisions and meetings that need to be noted.

As a Hampshire County councillor he said that at he does not see all papers, "there are alternatives methods of managing confidential papers which would just mean that as a back bench councillor you just don't see things".

 

Message from the editor 
Thank you for reading this story. We really appreciate your support. 
Please help us to continue bringing you all the trusted news from Winchester by sharing this story or by following our Facebook page, click this link and hit like. 
Kimberley Barber