Review of an Assessment Decision: Reference WC-ENQ00172
Supporting documents:
Minutes:
Preamble
The Chairman led the Sub-Committee through the local assessment criteria which detailed the initial tests that should be satisfied before assessment of a complaint was commenced.
Upon going through the initial tests, it was agreed that the complaint related to the conduct of a member and that the member was in office at the time of the alleged incident and remains a member of Wiltshire Council. A copy of the appropriate Code of Conduct was also supplied for the assessment. The reasoning of the representative of the Monitoring Officer that the website posts were undertaken in the subject member’s official capacity as an elected member was accepted.
The Sub-Committee therefore had to decide whether the alleged behaviour would, if proven, amount to a breach of that Code of Conduct. Further, if it was felt it would be a breach, was it appropriate under the assessment criteria to refer the matter for investigation.
In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took into account the complaint, the response of the subject member, the initial assessment of the representative of the Monitoring Officer to refer the matter for investigation and the subject member’s request for a review of that decision.
Incidents
The complaint principally related to a meeting of Malmesbury Area Board at which the subject member made a statement about the complainant and her employer, who were applying for a grant from the Area Board. The complainant alleged that the statement, exacerbated by further comments on the subject member’s website and social media, breached the Nolan principles of leadership listed under the Code of Conduct, as well as Paragraph 1 of the Code, which holds:
You mustact solely in thepublicinterestandshouldneverimproperlyconfer an advantageordisadvantageon anypersonoract to gainfinancial or othermaterial benefitsfor yourself,your family,a friendor closeassociate.
The allegation was that in making the statement he had in the manner he did, the subject member attempted to improperly disadvantage the complainant and the organisation that employed her in the eyes of the Board, with direct potential negative financial consequences. Furthermore, that by following up with public posts casting doubt on the integrity of the complainant and the organisation she represented, it could be seen as an unreasonable or excessive attack which could be a breach of the obligation to promote and support high ... view the full minutes text for item 21