Investigation report attached.
Minutes:
Members considered whether Councillor Batty was acting in his capacity as a councillor, particularly given his rebuttal that he had not written the letter but that it had been written by the editor of a citizen journalism website based on information provided to him by Councillor Batty. Members felt that the style of the letter was Councillor Batty’s and the explanation that the editor of the citizen journalism website had adopted Councillor Batty’s style to masquerade as him was implausible. It was agreed that, on the balance of probabilities, Councillor Batty had been acting in his capacity as a parish councillor in writing the letter in his name to the citizen journalism website and the code of conduct was therefore engaged.
Members then went on to consider whether the content of letter breached the parish council code of conduct, paying particular attention to whether the content was afforded the protection of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (EHCR). They felt that the allegation of fraudulent behaviour against an identifiable auditor was potentially damaging to their reputation and to public confidence in the parish council. They felt that Councillor Batty’s letter crossed the threshold of robust scrutiny and challenge into allegations of impropriety and potentially damaging comments and as such he lost his right to protection under Article 10 of the EHCR and therefore breached the code. They also felt that the content of the letter cast Groby Parish Council into a poor light and brought the parish council into disrepute.
It was therefore moved by Councillor W Crooks, seconded by Councillor Williams and
RESOLVED – on the balance of probabilities
(i) Councillor Batty was acting in his capacity as a parish councillor in writing the letter to a citizen journalism website;
(ii) Councillor Batty breached paragraph 2.3.1 of the code of conduct in failing to treat the unnamed but identifiable auditor and an employee of the parish council with respect by suggesting they were complicit in making a fraudulent amendment to a public interest report;
(iii) Councillor Batty breached paragraph 2.16 of the code of conduct by bringing the parish council into disrepute and demonstrating behaviour that fell below the standard of that expected of a parish councillor.
Having identified breaches of the code of conduct, the committee considered relevant sanctions to impose. It was moved by Councillor W Crooks, seconded by Councillor Williams and
RESOLVED –
(i) Councillor Batty be requested to issue a formal apology to those who were the subject of the letter and who had been spoken about in disrespectful terms;
(ii) Councillor Batty be required to attend additional training on the code of conduct and standards required of a councillor;
(iii) A formal letter be issued to Councillor Batty highlighting the failings in his conduct;
(iv) Groby Parish Council be recommended to remove Councillor Batty from any positions of responsibility within the parish council;
(v) The committee’s decision be published on the council’s website and a press release be issued outlining the nature of the complaint and the committee’s decision;
(vi) Groby Parish Council be recommended to censure Councillor Batty.
Reasons for the decision to impose sanctions:
(a) Issuing an apology for the disrespectful comments may help ease relationships and ensure disrepute to the council is not caused;
(b) Relevant training would prevent a recurrence of such behaviour;
(c) Highlighting the failings in a letter would support the subject member to understand why his behaviour was unacceptable as a learning tool for improvement;
(d) The subject member’s behaviour demonstrated that he was not currently a suitable candidate to hold a position of responsibility within the parish council;
(e) In accordance with the intentions of the Localism Act 2011, the subject member should to be accountable by the public for his behaviour, and publication of the decision is the most appropriate way of raising awareness of his actions.