Minutes:
A complaint had been submitted by Ms Carrie Creamer against Councillor Mary Douglas of Wiltshire Council. The allegation was that Councillor Douglas had breached the Code in relation to consideration of a grant application.
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 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 initial assessment of the representative of the Monitoring Officer to take no further action and the complainant’s request for a review. The Sub-Committee also considered the verbal representation by the subject member at the Review. The complainant was not in attendance.
The allegations related to a meeting of Salisbury Area Board, where the subject member is the Chairman, and the consideration of a grant application which was refused by a majority of the Area Board. That application was for a project looking at the history of LGBT communities through the lens of fashion. It was alleged that the personal views of the subject member in relation to LGBT issues meant that she did not act in the public interest when considering the grant, failed to give adequate, open or transparent reasons for her decision and failed to consider the needs of different groups, and in doing so breached the Code as detailed above.
As noted in the initial assessment five members of the Area Board voted against the grant in question, including the subject member. The subject member had raised concerns before and at the meeting about what she regarded as the political nature of the grant request, due to the type of activity supported by the grant rather than the type of person the intended project would engage. However, those concerns were not shared by the other members, and the reasons for refusal, confirmed as accurate at a later meeting by the Area Board, did not include them as a reason for the refusal. While the Sub-Committee did not agree with the reasoning of the subject member’s interpretation of the grant request as political activity, she had been open and transparent about her concerns at the meeting. They endorsed the comments in the initial assessment that what might constitute political activity in the context of a grant application should be formally clarified in guidance to Area Boards.
As noted four other members had voted to refuse the grant application in addition to the subject member. There was no suggestion that the other members had acted improperly, and merely holding specific personal views would not, in itself and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, demonstrate that the subject member had acted in breach of the Code. The request for review raised concerns with the stated reasons for refusal at the meeting. However as stated previously these had subsequently been confirmed as accurate by the Area Board, and there had been no evidence submitted that the subject member had not openly and transparently considered the application. Even if someone felt the reasons given by the Area Board were inadequate, five members had in open debate considered otherwise.
As a result, the Sub-Committee considered that there was no evidence submitted that the subject member had contravened paragraphs 1 and 5 of the Code, or failed to have regard to the Nolan principles of conduct in public life as alleged.
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.