Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

To elect a Chairman for this meeting only.

Councillor Julian Johnson was elected for this meeting only.

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

There were no declarations.

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 Item Number 4  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

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 Agenda Item Number 4  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

The Sub-Committee considered complaint WC-ENQ00124 from complainant Ms Alison Cross-Jones against Councillor Simon Killane of Wiltshire Council, in accordance with the approved arrangements adopted by Council on 26 June 2012. It was alleged that Councillor Killane posted to his website statements that were false and damaging about the complainant and as a result breached the Code of Conduct

Preamble

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. The Sub-Committee accepted the reasoning of the Deputy Monitoring Officer in his Initial Assessment that the blog post on the subject member’s personal website, due to content and framing, was such that he was acting in his capacity as a councillor in making the post and therefore was subject to the Code of Conduct. They therefore needed to consider if the alleged actions of the subject member would amount to a breach of that Code, including failing to uphold the Nolan Principles.

It was noted that the Decision Notice produced by the Deputy Monitoring Officer had provided a lengthy and detailed summation of the law and his interpretation of the facts of the complaint. He had concluded that the comments, while unwise and likely to escalate the situation further, would not amount to a breach of the Code. In reaching this conclusion he had had regard to the nature of the political debate already occurring publicly within the community. He had considered whether the emotive language utilized by the subject member in his blog post had, in the context of that ongoing and connected wider political debate which had involved the complainant, progressed into the realm of a personal attack as opposed to retaining the enhanced legal protections on free speech afforded to political commentary.

Additionally, the Deputy Monitoring Officer had clarified that even if his assessment that the words did not amount to a breach of the Code was considered to be incorrect, he would still have determined that no further action should be taken in accordance with paragraph 5 of the assessment criteria adopted by the council, which states:

A complaint will not be referred for investigation if, on the available information, it appears to be trivial, vexatious, malicious, politically motivated or ‘tit for tat’.

The Sub-Committee considered the arguments of the complainant in her request for a review of the Initial Assessment. She had disputed the interpretation of the Deputy Monitoring Officer, in particular she felt that the wider context of historic complaints and allegations should not have been regarded as relevant to her current complaint, and that the comments of the subject member directed at her should not be considered as part of a political debate ongoing within Malmesbury.

Committee Discussion

Whilst the Sub-Committee agreed that the comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.