Browse

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Online Meeting

Contact: Kieran Elliott  01225 718504, Email: kieran.elliott@wiltshire.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

47.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

There were no apologies.

48.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 19 November 2020.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 November 2020 were presented for consideration, and it was,

 

Resolved:

 

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

49.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

There were no declarations.

50.

Meeting Procedure and Assessment Criteria

To note the procedure and assessment criteria for the meeting.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The meeting procedure and assessment criteria for the meeting were noted.

51.

Exclusion of the Public

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

Minutes:

 

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 52-58, 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

 

52.

Assessment of Complaint: COC131319

Minutes:

In considering complaint COC131319 the Sub-Committee were satisfied that the initial tests of the assessment criteria had been met, including that the member was and remains a member of the relevant Council, and that a copy of the relevant Code of Conduct was provided for the assessment.

 

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 received verbal statements from the Complainant and Subject Member at the 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 refer the complaint for investigation.

 

53.

Assessment of Complaint: COC132107

Minutes:

Preamble

A complaint was received from Richard Maurin-Powell (The Complainant) regarding the conduct of Councillor Liz Sirman (The Subject Member) of Salisbury City Council.

 

It was alleged the Subject Member had breached the Code of Conduct by not promoting or supporting high standards of conduct, failed to be accountable for their decisions and failed to be as open as possible for those decisions, in relation to an informal meeting with Members and Officers of Wiltshire Council by, it was alleged, improperly misrepresenting the policy position of Salisbury City Council in respect of an experimental Traffic Order known as “The People Friendly Salisbury Traffic Scheme” (the scheme).

 

Assessment

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 Salisbury 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.

 

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 provided at the Assessment Sub-Committee meeting. The Complainant was not in attendance.

 

Conclusion

The complaint involved a meeting of the Subject Member, who had been newly installed as Leader of Salisbury City Council, and senior Members and officers of Wiltshire Council. The new Deputy Leader of the City Council was also present and was subject to a related complaint of COC132109.

 

The ‘People Friendly Streets’ scheme had been enacted by Wiltshire Council, and shortly after the meeting referenced above Wiltshire Council indefinitely suspended the scheme, with media reports referenced by the Complainant stating that city councillors refused to confirm support for the scheme.

 

The Complainant was not present at the meeting in question but alleges that the Subject Member misrepresented the policy position of the City Council in respect of the scheme and acted dishonestly in not inviting other members to the meeting.

 

The Subject Member states that she had been invited to the meeting by Wiltshire Council and had not arranged the invitations and that she was clear at all times that any views she expressed were her personal ones and not those of the City Council, which had not resolved officially on the specific scheme. She further states that at the conclusion of that meeting she was told the matter would be further discussed and was not informed of the decision by Wiltshire Council to suspend the scheme in advance of the announcement.

 

Decision

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

54.

Assessment of Complaint: COC132109

Minutes:

Preamble

A complaint was received from Richard Maurin-Powell (The Complainant) regarding the conduct of Councillor Simon Jackson (The Subject Member) of Salisbury City Council.

 

It was alleged the Subject Member had breached the Code of Conduct by not promoting or supporting high standards of conduct, failed to be accountable for their decisions and failed to be as open as possible for those decisions, in relation to an informal meeting with Members and Officers of Wiltshire Council by, it was alleged, improperly misrepresenting the policy position of Salisbury City Council in respect of an experimental Traffic Order known as “The People Friendly Salisbury Traffic Scheme” (the scheme).

 

Assessment

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 Salisbury 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.

 

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 provided at the Assessment Sub-Committee meeting. The Complainant was not in attendance.

 

Conclusion

The complaint involved a meeting of the Subject Member, who had been newly installed as Deputy Leader of Salisbury City Council, and senior Members and officers of Wiltshire Council. The new Leader of the City Council was also present and was subject to a related complaint of COC132107.

 

The ‘People Friendly Streets’ scheme had been enacted by Wiltshire Council, and shortly after the meeting referenced above Wiltshire Council indefinitely suspended the scheme, with media reports referenced by the Complainant stating that city councillors refused to confirm support for the scheme.

 

The Complainant was not present at the meeting in question but alleges that the Subject Member misrepresented the policy position of the City Council in respect of the scheme and acted dishonestly in not inviting other members to the meeting.

The Subject Member states that he clarified several times at that meeting that he could not speak for the City Council as the matter had not been specifically tabled or debated by them. He states that those present from Wiltshire Council stated they would discuss the matter further and come back to those who had attended the meeting, but that a statement on the suspension of the scheme was later made.

 

Decision

The decision to implement and suspend the ‘People Friendly Streets’ scheme was undertaken by Wiltshire Council. From the accounts it was clear that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

55.

Assessment of Complaint: COC131113

Minutes:

Preamble

A complaint was received from Mel Rolph (The Complainant) regarding the conduct of Councillor Pat Aves (The Subject Member) of Melksham Town Council.

 

It was alleged the Subject Member had breached the Code of Conduct by failing to have regard to the Nolan principles, specifically integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership, and failed to be open as possible about his decisions and actions, and failed to give reasons for those decisions and actions.

 

This was alleged in respect of the suspension several officers working for the Town Council.

 

Assessment

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.

 

It had also been identified that the complaint had been submitted out of time according to Wiltshire Council procedures for dealing with Code of Conduct Complaints. The Sub-Committee confirmed that as the delay had not been the fault of the Complainant, they considered that it was appropriate for the complaint to be accepted and therefore could be assessed.

 

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.

 

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 written statement from the Complainant provided at the Assessment Sub-Committee meeting on 15 December 2020. Neither party was in attendance.

 

Discussion

The complaint was linked with complaints COC131238, COC131239 and COC131240 involving other Members of the Town Council arising from the same set of circumstances and made by the Complainant. It was also linked with complaints COC130429, COC130430, COC130432 and COC130433 arising from the same circumstances against the same members. It is also linked with COC131452, in the fact that that complaint is from an elected member of the town Council alleging that the Subject Member of that complaint (who is one of the four complaints in both the above sets of complaints) did not act in accordance with the Town’s standing orders and Financial regulations in respect of the same set of circumstances.

 

The complaint involved a series of actions of four Members, including the Subject Member, which it was alleged were not in accordance with council procedures, resulting in the unlawful suspension of two officers of the Town Council, and in so doing and through other actions around the decision, breached the Code by not promoting or maintaining high standards of conduct.

 

The Subject Member contends that they acted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

56.

Assessment of Complaint: COC131238

Minutes:

Preamble

A complaint was received from Mel Rolph (The Complainant) regarding the conduct of Councillor Geoff Mitcham (The Subject Member) of Melksham Town Council.

 

It was alleged the Subject Member had breached the Code of Conduct by failing to have regard to the Nolan principles, specifically integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership, and failed to be open as possible about his decisions and actions, and failed to give reasons for those decisions and actions.

 

This was alleged in respect of the suspension several officers working for the Town Council.

 

Assessment

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.

 

It had also been identified that the complaint had been submitted out of time according to Wiltshire Council procedures for dealing with Code of Conduct Complaints. The Sub-Committee confirmed that as the delay had not been the fault of the Complainant, they considered that it was appropriate for the complaint to be accepted and therefore could be assessed.

 

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.

 

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 written statement from both the Complainant and the Subject Member provided at the Assessment Sub-Committee meeting on 15 December 2020. Neither party was in attendance.

 

Discussion

The complaint was linked with complaints COC131113, COC131239 and COC131240 involving other Members of the Town Council arising from the same set of circumstances and made by the Complainant. It was also linked with complaints COC130429, COC130430, COC130432 and COC130433 arising from the same circumstances against the same members. It is also linked with COC131452, in the fact that that complaint is from an elected member of the town Council alleging that the Subject M ember of that complaint (who is one of the four complaints in both the above sets of complaints) did not act in accordance with the Town’s standing orders and Financial regulations in respect of the same set of circumstances.

 

The complaint involved a series of actions of four Members, including the Subject Member, which it was alleged were not in accordance with council procedures, resulting in the unlawful suspension of two officers of the Town Council, and in so doing and through other actions around the decision, breached the Code by not promoting or maintaining high standards of conduct.

 

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

57.

Assessment of Complaint: COC131239

Minutes:

Preamble

A complaint was received from Mel Rolph (The Complainant) regarding the conduct of Councillor Vanessa Fiorelli (The Subject Member) of Melksham Town Council.

 

It was alleged the Subject Member had breached the Code of Conduct by failing to have regard to the Nolan principles, specifically integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership, and failed to be open as possible about his decisions and actions, and failed to give reasons for those decisions and actions.

 

This was alleged in respect of the suspension several officers working for the Town Council.

 

Assessment

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.

 

It had also been identified that the complaint had been submitted out of time according to Wiltshire Council procedures for dealing with Code of Conduct Complaints. The Sub-Committee confirmed that as the delay had not been the fault of the Complainant, they considered that it was appropriate for the complaint to be accepted and therefore could be assessed.

 

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.

 

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 written statement from both the Complainant and the Subject Member provided at the Assessment Sub-Committee meeting on 15 December 2020. Neither party was in attendance.

 

Discussion

The complaint was linked with complaints COC131113, COC131238 and COC131240 involving other Members of the Town Council arising from the same set of circumstances and made by the Complainant. It was also linked with complaints COC130429, COC130430, COC130432 and COC130433 arising from the same circumstances against the same members. It is also linked with COC131452, in the fact that that complaint is from an elected member of the town Council alleging that the Subject M ember of that complaint (who is one of the four complaints in both the above sets of complaints) did not act in accordance with the Town’s standing orders and Financial regulations in respect of the same set of circumstances.

 

The complaint involved a series of actions of four Members, including the Subject Member, which it was alleged were not in accordance with council procedures, resulting in the unlawful suspension of two officers of the Town Council, and in so doing and through other actions around the decision, breached the Code by not promoting or maintaining high standards of conduct.

 

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

58.

Assessment of Complaint: COC131240

Minutes:

Preamble

A complaint was received from Mel Rolph (The Complainant) regarding the conduct of Councillor Adrienne Westbrook (The Subject Member) of Melksham Town Council.

 

It was alleged the Subject Member had breached the Code of Conduct by failing to have regard to the Nolan principles, specifically integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership, and failed to be open as possible about his decisions and actions, and failed to give reasons for those decisions and actions.

 

This was alleged in respect of the suspension several officers working for the Town Council.

 

Assessment

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.

 

It had also been identified that the complaint had been submitted out of time according to Wiltshire Council procedures for dealing with Code of Conduct Complaints. The Sub-Committee confirmed that as the delay had not been the fault of the Complainant, they considered that it was appropriate for the complaint to be accepted and therefore could be assessed.

 

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.

 

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 written statement from both the Complainant and the Subject Member provided at the Assessment Sub-Committee meeting on 15 December 2020. Neither party was in attendance.

 

Discussion

The complaint was linked with complaints COC131113, COC131238 and COC131239 involving other Members of the Town Council arising from the same set of circumstances and made by the Complainant. It was also linked with complaints COC130429, COC130430, COC130432 and COC130433 arising from the same circumstances against the same members. It is also linked with COC131452, in the fact that that complaint is from an elected member of the town Council alleging that the Subject M ember of that complaint (who is one of the four complaints in both the above sets of complaints) did not act in accordance with the Town’s standing orders and Financial regulations in respect of the same set of circumstances.

 

The complaint involved a series of actions of four Members, including the Subject Member, which it was alleged were not in accordance with council procedures, resulting in the unlawful suspension of two officers of the Town Council, and in so doing and through other actions around the decision, breached the Code by not promoting or maintaining high standards of conduct.

 

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.