Minutes:
Two separate complaints had been submitted regarding the same incident by Sgt Gemma Rutter, Wiltshire Police, and Mel Rolph respectively, the Complainants. The complaints were regarding the alleged conduct of Councillor Mark Harris, Melksham Without Parish Council, the Subject Member, in respect of behaviour at a meeting with several PCSOs, and others, which was stated to have been unprofessional and disrespectful.
Preamble
The Sub-Committee was satisfied the initial tests of the assessment criteria had been met, in that the Subject Member was and remains a member of Melksham Without Parish Council and that a copy of the relevant Code of Conduct was provided for the assessment.
There was a dispute between the parties over whether the Subject Member had been acting in their capacity as a Parish Councillor at the time of the meeting during which the alleged conduct occurred. If it was determined that they were not acting or reasonably perceived to be acting in their official capacity, then the alleged conduct would not be capable of being in breach of the Code.
If the Subject Member was acting in their official capacity, the Sub-Committee therefore had to decide whether the alleged behaviour would, if proven, amount to a breach of the 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. Written statements from the Subject Member and one Complainant were also received. No parties were in attendance.
Discussion
Neither Complainant had been present at the meeting at which the alleged behaviour occurred. One was the responsible Sergeant for the PCSOs, the other was the mother of one of the PCSOs. The meeting was in respect of issues about trailers being parked in contravention of traffic orders in the Bowerhill Industrial Park, which had been a longstanding issue for the community.
The complaint alleges the Subject Member caused shock and insult due to very personal comments, including regarding the mother of one PCSO, pulled faces and made exaggerated tantrum noises, mocked the responses of the officers, and generally behaved in a manner inappropriate for an elected Member.
The Subject Member stated in response to one complaint that his comments had been misreported and misinterpreted, but that he accepted they were ill advised and had made an apology through the Sergeant to those offended, noting he had done so prior to being made aware of a formal complaint being submitted. In response to the other complaint he stated that his comments as alleged had been ‘as a way of breaking the ice’, and when it did not go down well he accepted it was a ‘crass and stupid thing to say’. He stated he had since apologised.
The first question for the Sub-Committee to address was whether the Subject Member had been acting in an official capacity. He set out that he had been told in other forums he could not act as a Member on such matters, and had communicated in writing through personal emails to distinguish his role from that of an elected Member.
The Sub-Committee noted these efforts by the Subject Member. However, in acting in his own words as a spokesperson for residents on a matter which had been raised by him to and on behalf of the Council in other forums, and the lack of clarification provided at the meeting in question, there was a reasonable presumption from those present that he had been acting in an official capacity.
This was further argued by noting that a member of the public would not generally be in a position to arrange a meeting with members of the Neighbourhood Policing Team, clerk to the Parish Council, and local Unitary Member to discuss a matter of local concern as the Subject Member was able through being a councillor, and the press reporting of the incident which in later responses he confirmed he was happy to have had attributed to him as a councillor, even though he argued this had not been his intention.
Having established that it reasonably appeared the Subject Member had been acting in an official capacity at the meeting, the next question for the Sub-Committee was whether the alleged behaviour, if proven, rose to the level of a breach of any element of the Code of Conduct.
Although the Subject Member had made some effort to distinguish his conduct between official and unofficial capacities, the Sub-Committee would note that where acting in some manner as representative on community matters, in discussion with partners and interacting with council officers and other Elected Members, it would not always be possible to disentangle the different roles as far as others were able to perceive, even if stated that they were separated. Where it was possible, this would need to be made clear to all parties.
In accordance with the assessment criteria it was important to acknowledge the apologies which had been made by the Subject Member in writing, and also the importance of free speech. Whilst insulting or offensive language could rise to the level of a breach depending on the situation and the specific Code of a council, this would generally need to be of a significant level to justify intervention under a standards regime.
Conclusion
The Sub-Committee noted that some of the alleged comments had been of an insulting or disrespectful nature, which the Subject Member had acknowledged as inappropriate. It did not consider these had risen to a level capable of being in breach of the Code.
However, the Sub-Committee noted the response of the Subject Member at one point stating he was ‘more than willing to apologise in person’. The Sub-Committee considered it reasonable to encourage the Subject Member on that basis to make the apologies directly to the Complainant in writing.
Although the Subject Member had made some effort to distinguish his conduct between official and unofficial capacities, the Sub-Committee would note that where acting in some manner as representative on community matters, in discussion with partners and interacting with council officers and other Elected Members, it would not always be possible to disentangle the different roles as far as others were able to perceive, even if stated that they were separated. Where it was possible, this would need to be made clear to all parties.
It was therefore
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 take no further action in respect of the complaints.