Why is trying to represent yourself always that much harder

[PeanutGallery]

At the moment I'm involved in a personal brouhaha with my local council. The long and the short of it is a few years back I was working for a training company, doing assessments, during this one other member of the company was made known to me. I didn't know it at the time, but would later find out that he was a council member of staff who was moonlighting for the company.

Of course it was a little more complicated than just having a second job. You see his job for the council was to supervise the actions of the training company and to assign work for the council to them.

I left the training company after about a year. They weren't very happy with my decision to leave and for some reason or another saw fit to threaten me. This was when they used their council staff employee to generally try and make it so that I wouldn't work in that trade again. I decided that I wasn't going to be bullied by this and now that they had confirmed he was an employee went to the council.

The council didn't believe me. I tried to explain that he was working for the training company, even going so far as to produce a staff report, but the more I tried to explain it the more it seemed that they were determined not to believe my allegation. It's come to a head today, which has affected my mood somewhat. I got a letter in response to my allegations and I can't make sense of it.

First the have accepted that the email address I have maintained was the council officers personal email was in fact his personal email. However they don't think him using this email for work related items was inappropriate although they also say it wasn't appropriate. They also don't seem worried by the admission that this address was being used for hospitality in clear breach of their own guidelines. In fact they just seem to have ignored that his excuse for something being a little wrong was because he was in fact doing this other thing that they also have described as being wrong.

Finally when it comes to the report listing this guy as being staff, they just seem to be ignoring it because it doesn't fit the view they want to have. They say that they tried to contact the writer of the report but didn't get a reply so just decided to ignore it. That doesn't seem right to me. They have claimed to have other assurances from other areas, although haven't actually explained what these are.

In my case I have two significant emails relating to this report, one is sent by the Operations Director of the company and thanks the Council officer by name for his time at the staff meeting, the second is sent by the Managing Director of the training company and lists the council worker as having a staff role. Both of these emails were sent both to me and to the council workers private email address.

However the council seem to be either missing the point or misunderstanding me, this is frustrating because normally I like to think I communicate my points clearly and well. However in this issue, I seem to get into a muddle and am sure that they have written me off as some kind of Sovrun esque loon, the more I try to explain the more it seems that they are determined not listen and this seems to start a vicious circle.

So why is it so hard to represent yourself or talk about something which you have an emotional involvement in? Why can't I seem to clearly explain the evidence, it's implications or get clear answers from the council? Why is this proving so bloody hard and frustrating. I'm trying to do the right thing and I seem to be getting prevented at every turn.

Apologies, but I kind of need to vent and I'd sooner vent to folks I consider to be ahead of the curve when it comes to understanding and comprehension.

[wserra]

I don't think it likely that your council is being obstinate because you represent yourself. The nature of politicians is to be obstinate to the point of deliberate ignorance when presented with something they just don't want to deal with.

Politics is a verboten subject here. Still, I don't think anyone, liberal or conservative, would disagree with the above proposition. (We might disagree on the subjects where obstinacy rules, but that's where we don't tread.) What you're likely up against is the nature of the beast. That will change if the obvious conflict of interest blows up in a way that would embarrass the council members. At that point, all the folks who were at first busy denying everything become Captain Renault shutting down Rick's Cafe Americain.

[PeanutGallery]

I don't feel that the issue is necessarily political. In the UK council staff are supposed to be politically neutral and I'm not actually dealing with elected officials, rather civil servants. I think a large part of the problem is that they've reached a decision and they really want to cling onto it regardless of what the evidence actually says. That and perhaps you are right, perhaps they simply don't want to deal with it unless they are somehow forced to deal with it.

The problem is that the explanation they sent to me, at close of business yesterday, only served to raise more questions and to make this whole thing look a little murkier. At the same time they are using this to try and deny any wrongdoing on the part of the council officer.

As an example, they have confirmed that the company he supervised was emailing him on his personal email and not his work one. They claim this was not a sign of an inappropriate relationship, although also state that it was not appropriate for him to be emailed council business on his private email. The have stated that the company only had this private email address for the purpose of inviting the council officer to hospitality, even though this hospitality would be against the councils own rules on hospitality.

Not all of the emails sent were related to council business, one is the Council Officer being invited to a Christmas Dinner held by the company (this is very clearly against the councils rules about hospitality, officers are only allowed to accept hospitality when it is directly related to work I have read the guidelines on the councils own website).

Another email sent by the managing director contains a report that lists the Council officer as having a staff role at the training company. The council officer was sent this report to his private email address. It would be very inappropriate for the council officer to be listed as staff at a subcontractor he supervises, he'd be dealing on both sides of the fence. However they feel that they can ignore this evidence because they have "sufficient assurances from other areas".

It's very frustrating and I find it frustrating that I cannot seem to explain the matter in a way where they will understand the actual substance of the complaint.

[AndyK]

Perhaps mention to the Council that this entire issue sounds like something which would be of interest to the seedier side of the British press?

[Arthur Rubin]

Perhaps mention to the Council that this entire issue sounds like something which would be of interest to the seedier side of the British press?

But ... but that would be blackmail, wouldn't it?

[AndyK]

Oh, such a fine line between thinly-vieled threats and gentle persuasion.

[notorial dissent]

There is a very fine and subtle distinction between threatening to go to the press over something, and calmly making the prediction, that if the parties involved do not behave rationally and equitably, that the press WILL inevitably, sooner rather than later, find out about it and have a field day with it, that and reminding them of just how much the popular press just loves these kind of stories so they can expect lots of publicity out of it, probably really bad publicity. Then, if they're too stupid to get the subtle hint you can always go ahead and really threaten them with it, although it would be a good idea to be able to actually carry out the threat if need be. Sometimes the genetic imperative of stupid wins out over self preservation.

[fortinbras]

One of the things I was taught in law school is that even lawyers shouldn't try to handle their own cases (esp when they are the defendants); much like pro se parties, they tend to see only their own point of view and miss or distort the opposition's position and strengths.

[PeanutGallery]

That is what I am concerned about, sometimes public bodies get it wrong and sometimes you have the wrong end of the stick. It's also easier to get to the meat of an issue when you are on the outside and looking in, probably because you don't have any emotional investment in the issue, it doesn't matter which side is right to you, and this allows you to clearly investigate the matter.

However I also gave thought to how try and move them away from being obstinate. I concluded that the best option wasn't to try anything that could read like blackmail so I figured I'd open a blog channel, write up the allegation based on the emails and what the councils own code of conduct for officers states and place it in the public domain.

Then contact a couple of local newspapers and direct them to the article.

I felt it best to base everything on emails I have a record of and information that has been confirmed to me, anything I don't have proof of I thought it best to leave out due to libel laws. For instance if I had seen this officer taking a bribe, then I wouldn't report on that because I couldn't prove it, but I can prove that emails were sent to his personal account by the directors of the company and I can prove that a document sent with one of these emails listed this officer as staff.

[notorial dissent]

It is always best to use kindness and reason when dealing with a stubborn animal, and then when that fails a good sound 2x4, metaphorically or not, is often then the next best answer, but do try the first part first.

[Hyrion]

One of the things I was taught in law school is that even lawyers shouldn't try to handle their own cases (esp when they are the defendants); much like pro se parties, they tend to see only their own point of view and miss or distort the opposition's position and strengths.

Among other things. It doesn't matter whether some of us are Lawyers, Mechanics, Doctors, Dishwashers, etc. we're all human. And we all need to communicate effectively.

I've found when I get frustrated in communications - and this includes all forms of communications with no exceptions - when the frustration sets in, it becomes more difficult to grasp an understanding of the communication that was going on.

Communication being a two-way street dosn't work so well when it alters into a one-way street due to emotions. Taking a time out to calm down, think about things from both sides, and work out the basics for communication has helped a lot as a strategy.

The basics being:

• 1: What end result are you trying to reach?

This, of course, could really be nothing more then ensuring your meaning was understood even if your boss decided on a different path.

• 2: What are the pros/cons supporting/against the end result?

• 3: Are you making assumptions that are incorrect?

A good example of this is when I present a solution to a problem and others can't quite see how it's a solution. I've taken a step back and realized there's a few points of issue that I'm aware of that they are not - so taking the time to outline those points helps.

Even after over a decade of being very consciously aware of the above, I still - from time to time - have to write out what I want to say. Put it aside, come back later to review and rewrite it. Repeat a couple more times before what I wanted to say is clearly stated.

[guilty]

It may not be a problem with communication. The Council will not, for data protection reasons, discuss with you the details of any internal staff issues. If you have provided your name and address in your complaint and it's not an anonymous letter, then it will certainly be dealt with - the difficulty will be finding out what they did.
It's hard to give any opinion because we don't know what the circumstances are, other than from your side.
Using a private email address for work related communications is frowned upon, but it is not necessarily a disciplinary matter. Offers of hospitality are not not 'illegal', it is the acceptance of that hospitality that could raise questions if it is in excess of the Council's acceptable limits (usually quite low, say £50) and it hasn't been reported to the relevant chief officer.
Having a second job is not banned either, as long as the chief officer knows about it and has authorised it. The question would be 'does it conflict with his employment in the Council?'
It sounds as if this situation does show conflict.
In that case it may be that the best you can do is write to the chief officer and ask for assurances that the employees second job has been approved by the Council, and that all hospitality has been recorded in their register.