Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

To elect a Chairman for this meeting only.

Resolved:

To elect Councillor Trevor Carbin as Chairman for this meeting only.

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

There were no declarations.

To note the procedure and assessment criteria for the meeting.

The procedure and assessment criteria for the meeting were noted.

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 Numbers 5-6  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 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

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,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.