Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

Cllr Gordon King, who was substituted by Cllr Trevor Carbin

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 2023 were presented for consideration, and it was,

Resolved:

To approve and sign the minutes as a true and correct record.

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

In relation to Item 7 – Complaint COC147315, Cllr Richard Britton noted that as he was named in the complaint as having been in attendance for one of the relevant meetings, he would not take part in consideration of this complaint and left the room for this item.

To note the procedure and assessment criteria for the meeting.

The procedure and criteria were noted.

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 Agenda Item Numbers 6 onwards, 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.

Paragraph 1 - information relating to an individual

It was,

Resolved:

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 Minute Numbers 135 onwards, 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.

Paragraph 1 -information relating to an individual

In considering the complaint, the Sub-Committee were satisfied that the initial tests of the assessment criteria had been met, including that the Subject Member was a member for the period of allegations and remaind a member of Rowde Parish Council, that a copy of the relevant Code of Conduct was provided for the assessment, and that they were acting in their capacity as a Member during some aspects of the various alleged actions.

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, whether it was still appropriate under the assessment criteria to refer the matter for investigation.

In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took into account the original complaint and supporting information, the response of the Subject Member, and the report of the Monitoring Officer.

The Sub-Committee also considered a verbal statement from the Subject Member and a verbal statement from two of the Complainants, provided at the Assessment Sub-Committee meeting.

After discussion, it was:

Resolved

In accordance with the approved arrangements for resolving standards complaints adopted by Council on 9 July 2019, which came into effect on 1 January 2020 and after hearing from the Independent Person, the Assessment Sub-Committee determined to defer to the Monitoring Officer for Investigation.

A complaint had been submitted by Councillor William Seabrook, the Complainant, regarding the conduct of Councillor Harry Urquhart the Subject Member, both of West Dean Parish council. 

The Complaint concerned allegations that the Subject Member failed to declare an interest at council meetings regarding a planning matter and took part in discussions about the development in question. It was also alleged that the Subject Member demonstrated disrespect and harassment toward fellow Members and the Clerk of the Parish Council, causing the resignation of the Clerk and the Complainant. Other aspects of the allegations involve improper use of their position as Chairman and pre-determination of council business.

The Complainant did not specify which part of the Code they believed had
been breached, however the following sections were included for consideration:

2.2 I do not harass any person.
9.1 I register and disclose my interests

Preamble

The Sub-Committee were satisfied that the initial tests of the assessment criteria had been met, including that the Subject Member was and remained a member of West Dean Parish Council and the Council had a Code in place, along with a resolution to abide by the Local Government Association’s Model Code of Conduct. It was confirmed the council did have a code in place and both had been provided for the assessment, therefore the Sub-Committee was satisfied they were acting in their capacity as a Member during the various alleged actions.

The Sub-Committee therefore had to decide whether the alleged behaviour would, if proven, amount to a breach of that Code of Conduct. If the Sub-Committee concluded that the alleged behaviour would amount to a breach, then it would have to go on to decide whether it was appropriate under the assessment criteria to refer the matter for investigation or alternative resolution.

In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took into account the original complaint and supporting information, the response of the Subject Member, and the report of the Monitoring Officer.

The Sub-Committee also considered the verbal statement from the Subject Member provided at the Assessment Sub-Committee meeting. 

Discussion

The Complaint involved allegations that the Subject Member had failed to declare an interest in a planning matter, showed disrespect and harassment towards members of the council and the council’s clerk, displayed improper use of their position in office, acted dishonestly in statements made about the former clerk and had made decisions without the backing of the rest of the council.

The Sub-Committee considered the allegations, noting that at the time which they were said to have occurred, the Subject Member was the elected Chairman of the Parish Council. 

The Sub-Committee noted that the Complainant stated they had resigned as a result of the alleged actions of the Subject Member and that the Complainant was later re-elected and currently remained on the council.

The Subject Member contends that they have not breached the LGA Code of Conduct regarding the non-disclosure of an interest, as the development site was not in their ownership.  

The Subject Member stated that it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

A complaint was submitted by Linda Roberts, the Complainant, regarding the conduct of Councillor Jon Hubbard the Subject Member, of Melksham Town council. 

The complaint related to allegations that at the Council’s Asset Management and Amenities Committee meeting on 7 August 2023 the Subject Member made disrespectful statements about Officers of the Council, in an angry and aggressive manner.

The Complainant believed that through their actions the Subject Member had
breached the following principle of the Code:

Leadership - Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their
own behaviour

Preamble

The Sub-Committee were satisfied that the initial tests of the assessment criteria had been met, including that the Subject Member was and remains a member of Melksham Town Council, that a copy of the relevant Code of Conduct was provided for the assessment, and that they were acting in their capacity as a Member during the various alleged actions.

The Sub-Committee therefore had to decide whether the alleged behaviour would, if proven, amount to a breach of that Code of Conduct. If the Sub-Committee concluded that the alleged behaviour would amount to a breach, then it would have to go on to decide whether it was appropriate under the assessment criteria to refer the matter for investigation or alternative resolution.

In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took into account the original complaint and supporting information, the response of the Subject Member, and the report of the Monitoring Officer.

The Complainant and the Subject Member were not in attendance at the meeting to provide additional statements.   

Discussion

The Sub-Committee considered the allegations that the Subject Member had at a council meeting stated that:

·       Officers had undertaken work not authorised by the Council;

·       Councillors had passed resolutions which had fallen into
a big black hole, resulting in decisions being made and things being actioned which were not what councillors had asked for; 

·       He had no confidence in the officers that were leading the Council to
undertake their jobs [the Complainant is the clerk and head of the
organisation].

The Complainant further alleged that the Subject Member had demonstrated no civility or respect towards the Complainant for nearly two years and that the most recent behaviour at the Asset Management and Amenities Committee meeting on 7 August 2023 could not go unchallenged as they believed the Subject Member had breached the Code of Conduct and the Council’s Civility and Respect Pledge.

The Subject Member contended that the Complaint was a matter of tit-for-tat following a complaint he had submitted against the Complainant’s conduct and performance, currently under investigation. It was further contended that the allegations were vexatious and an attempt to shift the focus away from their own actions.

The Subject Member admited that he did make a speech at the meeting, which expressed his dissatisfaction with the performance of the ‘Senior Management Team’ at the Council and that there were a number of issues which he felt needed to be addressed.

The Sub-Committee noted that elected Members had no role  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.