You've probably noticed that Cllr Hugh Rayner has been in the news for months as the allegations against him surfaced and the complaints were investigated by the council. Or were they? It is reported in this paper that Maryellen Salter, the Council monitoring officer, dismissed charges that related to Cllr Rayner’s actions as a landlord because they are outside the scope of the members’ code of conduct, they ‘did not relate to Cllr Rayner’s activities as a councillor’. But the controversy refuses to die: people continue to debate whether Cllr Rayner should resign as Mayor of Barnet and even as a councillor.

Consider how other people in public life are treated. Sportsperson or business executive, they might be suspended or fired for actions that have nothing to do with their public role. Why? Because even in their private life they are seen as representatives of their sport or business, as role models. The same must be true for elected officials. We would not knowingly elect to any public office a person who treats customers or clients unfairly, who intimidates them or behaves unethically in any way. Therefore, it is only right that such allegations against an elected official be investigated. And Cllr Rayner agrees. In a written response to the Group Leaders’ Panel hearing the complaints against him, he wrote: ‘I cannot switch off being councilor completely when dealing with my tenants.’ So Cllr Rayner himself contradicts the excuse – for it can no longer be viewed as a reason – given by Ms Salter. Not only is Cllr Rayner not exonerated of all charges against him, but his statement invalidates Ms Salter’s decision.

This is not, and should not be, a party-political issue. Any councillor whose behaviour falls below an acceptable standard should be suspended until a proper investigation has concluded. There's still a way to go in Cllr Rayner's case.