THE chief executive of South Lakeland District Council has been cleared of any misconduct in a report following his nine-month suspension, reports Michaela Robinson-Tate.

It is understood that a local government specialist, brought in to conduct an independent investigation, has recommended Philip Cunliffe's handling of the council's pay and grading structure does not warrant any disciplinary action.

However, he goes on to recommend that Mr Cunliffe and the council explore the option of the chief executive's early retirement.

The recommendations, made by the expert, who is believed to be former chief executive of Westminster City Council Rodney Brooke, are to be discussed at an SLDC meeting today (Friday) due to be held behind closed doors.

Council chiefs - who have promised to produce a report into the issue next month - this week refused to divulge any details of Mr Brooke's findings ahead of today's meeting.

However, in addition to the recommendations about Mr Cunliffe, The Westmorland Gazette can disclose that councillors are expected to discuss Mr Brooke's findings about director of finance Jack Jones, who has also been suspended for nine months.

It is understood Mr Brooke has reported that he believes Mr Jones is guilty of misconduct.

However, Mr Brooke is also understood to recommend that, taking into account the long suspension to which Mr Jones has been subject, no disciplinary action should be taken against him.

One councillor, who did not wish to be named, said this week that members would be content for Mr Jones to return to his post.

"I think that Jack will have the confidence of members," he said.

As with Mr Cunliffe, the allegation against Mr Jones is understood to be connected to the handling of the authority's pay and grading structure. There is no suggestion that either of the officers has been accused of any impropriety.

When asked to comment on the recommendations, Mr Cunliffe, 57, said he was unable to confirm or deny them.

"I can't say a word until it's gone to council it would not be right."

When contacted by the Gazette, Jack Jones said: "I would not normally comment on a confidential issue being discussed by councillors, and this is no exception."

SLDC acting chief executive Mike Jones said that he was also unable to confirm or deny the recommendations about the two officers, until members had had the opportunity to discuss them today.

He also declined to confirm Mr Brooke's name, and said that as the independent person had now completed his task, it was up to members to decide what to do.

However, Mr Jones did promise to produce a report for the council, that will document the whole saga, and include lessons that the council has learned, and the action that needs to be taken.

"It will be an all-embracing document and as much as I can I will put it in the public domain," he said.

"I want your readers to know that anything we have to hold back will be for good reason."

Mr Brooke is understood to have produced an in-depth 27-page report, including evidence given at a five-day hearing, at which Mr Cunliffe and Mr Jones each "took the stand" for five hours.

Awarded a CBE in 1996, Mr Brooke is regarded in local government circles as one of the most respected figures in his field.

When members meet today (Friday), they will have a range of options open to them, but they will not be able to impose any sanctions which are greater than those recommended by Mr Brooke.

The conclusion about Mr Cunliffe means that he has not been found guilty of either misconduct or gross misconduct, which were understood to be two options being examined by Mr Brooke.

A finding of gross misconduct would have brought instant dismissal.

If a chief executive in Mr Cunliffe's position were to take early retirement, he or she would receive a lump sum, which would be based on a year's salary plus an amount reflecting the length of service, and a monthly pension payment. This would be the same arrangement whether early retirement was taken, or the officer retired at the recommended age.

Experts say there would be no question of Mr Cunliffe receiving any additional "pay off", and that this would not be allowed by the District Auditor, appointed by the Audit Commission to monitor how public money is spent.

The report brings to an end one part of the investigation into the pay and grading structure, which was introduced in July 2003 with the intention of ensuring equality of pay across the authority.

In January 2004, it became clear that the annual cost of the new structure would reach £1.6 million by 2009 or £1 million more than the £600,000 originally estimated.

Mr Cunliffe and Mr Jones were suspended on April 19, 2004, together with human resources manager Andrew Taylor, who resigned from the authority last September. SLDC bosses have always refused to name the three officers who were suspended.

It is understood that the suspensions have followed the usual rules covering local government employees, which means that Mr Jones and Mr Cunliffe have been receiving full salaries during the past nine months.