Minutes:
The Sub-Committee considered a review of an assessment decision regarding Councillors Ros Whiting, Gabrielle Horton, Adrian Andrews and Nick Greene of Stanton St Quintin Parish Council (the subject members). The allegation from Mr Malcolm Reeves (the complainant) was that the subject members had used their office to slander him at a parish council planning meeting and the minutes thereof, and in doing so breached paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the council’s Code of Conduct.
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 the members and that the members were in office at the time of the alleged incident and remained members of the Parish Council. A Code of Conduct was in place and had been provided with the complaint.
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 members, the initial assessment of the Deputy Monitoring Officer to take no further action, and the complainant’s request for a review. The Sub-Committee also considered the verbal representations made at the Review by the complainant. No subject members were in attendance.
Consideration
The complaint related to a meeting of Stanton St Quintin Parish Council on 27 February 2018, the minutes for which made a number of comments regarding a planning application from, and land belonging to, the complainant. Specifically, the minutes stated the complainant had included documents containing ‘factual inaccuracy, a deliberate attempt to mislead’.
The decision of the Deputy Monitoring Officer had concluded that the substance of the complaint related to the actions of the parish council as a body corporate, namely the accuracy of the minutes. The Standards regime is designed to address allegations of specific behaviours, and as the complaint was related to the minutes, no comments or statements were attributed to any particular member. As such, a dispute over the contents or accuracy of the minutes was a matter for the parish council and, ultimately, a court to determine.
The Review Sub-Committee accepted the reasoning of the Deputy Monitoring Officer that the decisions of the Parish Council regarding minutes’ accuracy were not a matter which could be addressed as a Code of Conduct matter. They therefore concluded to take no further action in respect of the complaint.
However, they also noted that in their collective response to the complaint the members had stated they would like to offer the complainant an apology for the language used in the minutes, which had since been amended. The Sub-Committee recommended that the members make any such apology public, and that in any case if the minutes had been amended since being approved, this would require a formal resolution by the parish council noting the original wording and that these had been changed.
At the conclusion of discussion, it was,
Resolved:
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 determined to take no further action.