Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Bray and Harris with the following substitutions authorised in accordance with council procedure rule 10:

Councillor C Gibbens for Councillor Bray

Councillor Sutton for Councillor Harris.

To confirm the minutes of the previous meetings held on 8 October, 21 October and 12 November 2024.

It was moved by Councillor J Crooks, seconded by Councillor Cartwright and

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meetings held on 8 October, 21 October and 12 November 2024 be confirmed as a correct record.

No interests were declared.

To consider the passing of a resolution under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 excluding the public from the undermentioned item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2 and 10 of Schedule 12A of the 1972 Act.

On the motion of Councillor Cartwright seconded by Councillor J Crooks, it was

RESOLVED – in accordance with section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2 and 10 of Part I of Schedule 12A of that Act.

Report of the independent investigator.

The Ethical Governance and Personnel Committee considered the report of the independent investigator into a complaint about a borough councillor.

The investigator was present and had not called any witnesses but had taken statements from all involved. Councillor Boothby, the subject member, was in attendance remotely.

Following introductions, the investigator presented the report and members asked questions of him. Councillor Boothby then put his case forward and members asked questions.

In answering questions on complaint 2024/09, Councillor Boothby denied sharing confidential information about someone who had come to him for assistance. In response to complaint 2024/24, Councillor Boothby acknowledged that he had passed on an email from a resident, containing their contact details, to the person about whom they were complaining, but stated that he hoped it would lead to them being able to resolve the matter between themselves.

Shortly before 10.57am, Councillor Boothby stated that he had to leave the meeting as he had another appointment. The chair asked whether he was happy for the meeting to continue in his absence, which he confirmed and subsequently left the meeting.

It was noted that the person who submitted complaint 2024/24 had complained to the Information Commissioner’s Officer (ICO) about the breach of data protection and, whilst the ICO had not taken any action against Councillor Boothby, they had confirmed that it was likely that he had unfairly disclosed personal data and provided advice to him and stated they would keep the case on record to build up a picture about the organisation’s compliance.

Members queried the comment in the report about attendance at safeguarding and data protection training and it was noted that Councillor Boothby had not attended data protection training since the General Data Protection Regulation came into effect in 2018 and had never attended the safeguarding training, both of which had been provided to members as part of the induction programme for several years.

The meeting adjourned at 11.18am and the investigator left the meeting. The committee reconvened at 11.23am in order to deliberate.

In relation to complaint 2024/09, a member suggested that despite the view of the investigator (which had been accepted by the committee) that Councillor Boothby hadn’t disclosed the full detail of the case, the information he had shared could have put the complainant in a vulnerable position.

It was noted that whilst Councillor Boothby said he had apologised to the complainant in complaint 2024/24, the complainant claimed not to have received an apology. It was suggested that Councillor Boothby had mistaken the complainant’s identity as he claimed to have seen them in the local shop, yet the complainant did not live locally and had never met Councillor Boothby in person for him to be able to recognise them. It was noted that person to whom Councillor Boothby had forwarded the complainant’s email and personal data was a friend of his and the matter presented a conflict of interest and he should have asked his fellow ward councillor to take up the case.

It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 369.