Agenda, decisions and minutes

To elect a Chairman for this meeting only

Nominations for a Chairman of the Standards Sub-Committee were sought and it was

Resolved:

To elect Councillor Gordon King as Chairman for this meeting only.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee or Monitoring Officer.

There were no declarations of interest.

To note the procedure for the meeting as included in Protocol 11 of the Constitution – Arrangements for dealing with Code of Conduct complaints, in
particular Paragraph 8.

The procedure listed within the agenda papers was noted.

Introductions of all those present were made.

To consider passing the following resolution:

To agree that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the public from the meeting for the business specified in Item Number 5 because it is likely that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in  paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information to the public.

After seeking views from the Investigating Officer, Subject Member and Monitoring Officer in accordance with procedure, the Sub-Committee did not resolve to move into Part II private session for the conducting of the Hearing.

To receive a report from the Monitoring Officer.

The Hearing was in relation to complaint COC149256 made by Mr Paul Smith (The Complainant), regarding the alleged conduct of Councillor Charles McGrath (The Subject Member), of Salisbury City Council and Wiltshire Council.

The Sub-Committee had received prior notification from the Investigating Officer and the Subject Member confirming their attendance at the Hearing in person. The Complainant was not in attendance and had provided a written statement.

Investigating Officer (IO) Representations

The Investigating Officer, Marion Stammers, presented their Report and confirmed that no witnesses would be called.

It was alleged that following a Facebook post made by the Complainant on the ‘Salisbury Soap Box’ group page, the Subject Member responded with “disgraceful language, bullying and abusive behaviour” towards the Complainant and to others.

In doing so it was alleged that the Subject Member breached sections of the Salisbury City Council’s Code of Conduct.

Salisbury City Council and Wiltshire Council have adopted versions of the Local Government Association Model Code of Conduct, which contain the following wording:

1.1 I treat other councillors and members of the public with respect.

2.2 I do not bully any person.

2.3 I promote equalities and do not discriminate unlawfully against any person.

5.1 I do not bring my role or local authority into disrepute.

Statement of the Complainant

In accordance with the procedure the Sub-Committee received a written statement from the Complainant in support of their complaint.

Questions of the Investigating Officer

In accordance with the procedure the Sub-Committee then had the opportunity to ask questions of the Investigating Officer, supported by the Independent Person.

The Investigating Officer gave clarity to why the originally offered apology had later been rejected by the Complainant, noting that there had been a misunderstanding between herself and the Subject Member regarding when the apology was to be made, which led to the Complainant retracting his agreement to accept an apology and to request the Subject Member be removed from office.

In addition, the Investigating Officer confirmed that the Complainant had been provided with the Protocol 11 - Arrangements for dealing with Code of Conduct Complaints and was aware that removal from office was not within the scope of the Sub-Committee.

There were no questions from the Subject Member.

Statement of the Subject Member

In accordance with the procedure the Sub-Committee received a verbal statement from the Subject Member as evidence and to make representations regarding the incident, whilst providing context to mitigating factors he believed to have been in place. 

The Subject Member stated that the comments of the Complainant on the ‘Salisbury Soap Box’ Facebook group on the day the allegations related to, were not a single incident and that the Complainant and other group members persistently criticised councillors for a perceived lack of action, which he believed bordered on harassment.

The Subject Member accepted that as councillors were public figures, some level of criticism was expected and should be tolerated, however he believed that singling out individual councillors was unacceptable. 

The Subject Member set out examples of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.