Issue - meetings

Members received an update on a complaint against a parish councillor that had been considered at a previous meeting whereby the subject member had refused to undertake the recommended training or offer an apology to the complainant. It was noted that the position had not changed.

Members felt the subject member had displayed contempt for the committee and their recommendation should be made public again. Concern was also expressed about the aggressive use of language and the unacceptable way the subject member spoke to the Monitoring Officer in correspondence.

It was noted that there was an ongoing Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) case and potentially a complaint with the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) from the subject member. It was therefore moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Cook that the code of conduct matter be deferred to the following meeting to allow for conclusion of the ICO and LGSCO cases where relevant. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was unanimously

RESOLVED – the item be deferred to the following meeting.

Initial complaint attached.

Exempt in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 10.

This items was exempt in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 10.

Members considered a number of complaints which alleged a parish councillor used unacceptable language directed at the chair and the clerk in a meeting. It was accepted that the complainants would remain anonymous due to fear of reprisals.

Members agreed that the subject member had been acting in their capacity as councillor at the time of the alleged comments. It was noted that the comments had not been refuted by the subject member, only counter-allegations made, and that much of the response from the subject member was irrelevant to the case. Whilst emails of support for the subject member had been received, stating that the comment towards the chair had not been made, it was reported that the Monitoring Officer had listened to a recording of the meeting and had heard the comment.

Members were reminded that their decision must be whether, on the balance of probabilities, the comments were made by the subject member and, if so, whether they constituted a breach of the code of conduct. The committee agreed that an investigation would not provide any further information as witness statements had already been provided on both sides. They also felt that it would draw out the process unnecessarily for those who had been brave enough to come forward and report that matter.

It was moved by Councillor Walker and seconded by Councillor Allen that, on the balance of probabilities, the comments had been made by the subject member and therefore constituted a breach of the code of conduct. It was proposed that the subject member be requested to apologise to the chair in writing and to undertake diversity training and, should they not comply with this, the decision notice be published. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was unanimously

RESOLVED –

(i)            The subject member be requested to apologise to the chair in writing;

(ii)          The subject member be requested to attend diversity training;

(iii)         Should compliance with (i) and (ii) above not be forthcoming, the decision notice be published.