Minutes:
A complaint had been submitted by Mr Patrick and Mrs Lucinda Horton against Cllr Susan Dawson of East Knoyle Parish Council. The allegation was that there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct in relation to conduct surrounding a public right of way.
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 some of the alleged incidents and remains a member of East Knoyle Parish Council. A copy of the appropriate Code of Conduct was also supplied 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, was it still appropriate under the assessment criteria to refer the matter for investigation.
In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took into account the complaint and supporting documentation, the response of the subject member, the initial assessment of the Deputy Monitoring Officer to take no further action and the complainants’ request for a review. The Sub-Committee also considered the verbal representation made at the Review by the subject member, as well as written submissions from the complainants, who were not in attendance, and the subject member.
The Sub-Committee took note that the additional representations from the complainants stated that they considered that the summary of their complaint in the initial assessment, replicated above, did not adequately reflect the substance of their complaints. They noted the clarifications provided by the complainants for the review. These included that the complainants considered the subject member’s actions to have breached paragraphs 1,2,3 and 4 of the Code of Conduct. The complainants had also set out what they considered to be the links between the public and private actions of the subject member that had allegedly been to her own personal advantage.
The complaints related to the circumstances around a public right of way that lay on the subject member’s property, and the recent and historic actions of the subject member in relation to that right of way. The complainants were of the view that the subject member had breached the relevant Code of Conduct by failing to properly register and declare her interest in the land at various meetings and during the discharge of council related functions. The initial assessment had concluded that the subject member had been acting in her private capacity for most of the alleged incidents, where the Code would not apply, and that the allegations which did relate to her public capacity as a parish councillor would not, if proven, be a breach of the Code.
Considerable documentation had been provided which demonstrated that the exact route of the public right of way in question, and actions around it, had been the subject of significant local interest and dispute over an extended period of time of many years. However, as noted in the initial assessment, disputes relating to accuracy of any of that evidence would not be a Code of Conduct matter, except insofar it related directly to the public capacity of the subject member.
It was evident that the complainants were in dispute with the
subject member regarding the accuracy of statements made in
relation to evidence gathered during the legal process for creation
of an additional right of way alongside the existing one, and the
alleged obstruction of the existing right of way in the past. Most
of these statements were clearly in relation to the private role of
the subject member as a landowner, and the question for the
Sub-Committee was to what extent the matter had directly arisen
only in relation to her role as parish councillor and the discharge
of council functions.
As conceded by the complainants in their request for a review, the subject member was under no legal obligation to make a declaration on her register or at council meetings regarding the right of way which was the cause of dispute between the parties. The only obligation was to register and disclose her general land interests, as set out in the relevant regulations. In the absence of a legal obligation to a make such a declaration, it therefore could not be possible to breach the Code by failing to do so. The Sub-Committee was in agreement with the deputy monitoring officer that it would not be a breach to fail to make a declaration or withdraw from the meeting when an unscheduled update mentioning the land was raised by another councillor.
As noted in the initial assessment, the complaint was principally a dispute between neighbours over a public right of way which had resulted in a serious breakdown in communication and trust. It was apparent that communication between the involved parties was at times strained, and the tone hostile. However, despite the extensive submissions, the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that it had been demonstrated that the subject member either had an obligation to volunteer her position regarding the public right of way, or that she had utilised her position as a member of the parish council improperly, or that she had otherwise breached the Code. Simply being a member of the parish council would not make every action of the subject member in relation to the right of way a public rather than private capacity action.
As such, the Sub-Committee did not feel the submissions indicated there had been an improper use of council resources, that an advantage or disadvantage had been improperly conferred, or that in her public capacity the subject member had demonstrated disrespect. The complainants had made reference to distress caused by what they described as harassment and vandalism they suffered as a result of ‘false rumours’. However there was no suggestion the subject member had been a party to any harassment or vandalism.
Therefore, the Sub-Committee resolved to take no further action in respect of the complaint.
Decision
In accordance with the approved arrangements for resolving standards complaints adopted by Council on 26 June 2012, which came into effect on 1 July 2012 and after hearing from the Independent Person, the Review Sub-Committee has decided to take no further action.