Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

·         Cllr Gordon King, who was substituted by Cllr Trevor Carbin

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 25 November 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 November 2021 were presented for consideration, and it was,

Resolved

To approve and sign the minutes as a true and correct record.

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 meeting 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 Agenda Item Numbers 6 onwards, 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

It was,

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 Minute Numbers 41-46, 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.

Preamble

A complaint had been made by Cllr Iain Wallis (The Complainant) of Devizes Town Council against Councillor Edward East (The Subject Member), also of Devizes Town Council.

The allegation was that the Subject Member had used his official role to confer a disadvantage to the Complainant in that:

a)    That the Subject Member refused to allow the Complainant to speak during Town Council Meetings on three separate occasions, the most recent being during the meeting of the Town Council on the 4th January 2022; and

b)    That the Subject Member stated to the Complainant his “Contribution has no value” during the meeting of the Town Council on the 4th January 2022.

Assessment

In assessing the complaint, the Sub-Committee were satisfied that the initial tests of the assessment criteria had been met, including that the Subject Member was a member for the period of allegations and remains a member of Devizes Town Council, that a copy of the relevant Code of Conduct was provided for the assessment, and that they were acting in their capacity as a Member during the alleged actions.

The Sub-Committee therefore had to decide whether the alleged behaviour would, if proven, amount to a breach of that Code of Conduct. If the Sub-Committee concluded that the alleged behaviour would amount to a breach, then it would have to go on to decide whether it was appropriate under the assessment criteria to refer the matter for investigation.  

Discussion

The Sub-Committee noted that the various allegations arose out of the council’s review of its Social Media Policy. 

The Sub-Committee also noted that due to the recent advancement and regular use of Social Media sites both locally and globally, many Councils were currently reviewing Policies to bring them in line with current usage and ways of working and that the review was not a result of an individual incident or members actions.   

The Sub-Committee further noted that the Subject Member and the Complainant represented different political parties on the Town Council and therefore there was likely to be differing viewpoints as to why actions may or may not be taken by the other. 

The Sub-Committee also considered the comprehensive assessment provided by the Independent Person, including publicly available details relating to a local Social Media site for the Devizes area which it was reported that the Complainant was the administrator. 

The Sub-Committee considered the allegations relating to the Subject Member, in his role as Chairman, preventing the Complainant, who was not a committee member, from speaking at the Community and Civic Resources (CCR) Committee meeting on 4 January 2022. The Sub-Committee noted that all Devizes Town Council Members, not on the CCR Committee were able to submit comments on the draft Policy ahead of the meeting, and were in addition invited at the meeting, to submit comments on the draft policy to the Chairman for consideration by the working group.  

The Sub-Committee further considered the background and response of the Subject Member to the allegations and noted that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

Preamble

A complaint had been made by Mr Michael Glover (The Complainant) against Councillor Gary Rowitt (The Subject Member), of Dinton Parish Council.

The allegation was that the Subject Member had, in chairing the meeting, “shouted him down” when the Complainant was attempting to correct the Subject Member’s response to the questions he had asked under Public Participation.

The Complainant also alleged that this denied him the permitted three minutes speaking time.

As a result of this behaviour, it was alleged the Subject Member was in breach of the following paragraphs of the Code of Conduct:

2.1 I do not bully any person.

5.1 I do not bring my role or local authority into disrepute

The Complainant also alleged that the Subject Member had failed to adhere to the council’s Financial Regulations.  However, this was an internal parish council matter and was not dealt with as part of the complaint.

Assessment

In assessing the complaint, the Sub-Committee were satisfied that the initial tests of the assessment criteria had been met, including that the Subject Member was a member for the period of allegations and remains a member of Dinton Parish Council, that a copy of the relevant Code of Conduct was provided for the assessment, and that they were acting in their capacity as a Member during the alleged actions.

The Sub-Committee therefore had to decide whether the alleged behaviour would, if proven, amount to a breach of that Code of Conduct. If the Sub-Committee concluded that the alleged behaviour would amount to a breach, then it would have to go on to decide whether it was appropriate under the assessment criteria to refer the matter for investigation. 

Discussion

The Sub-Committee noted the background to and detail of the allegations in relation to the actions of the Subject Member, in his role of Chairman of Dinton parish council at the meeting held on 13 December 2021. 

The Sub-Committee considered the input by the Independent Person.

The Sub-Committee considered the timings which were recorded in the minutes of the meeting, in relation to the period the Complainant was present and spoke for when he read his statement, of which a copy had been provided. It was noted that once a speaker had read a statement, whether or not the whole 3-minute time allowance had been used up, that ended their right to address the Committee.  There was no right for members of the public attending the meeting to subsequently interrupt the meeting.  

The Sub-Committee considered the allegations relating to the Subject Member raising his voice at the meeting and noted that the role of a chairman did require him to maintain order during periods of disruption and on occasions this may involve a chairperson having to raise their voice to allow themselves to be heard over any disruption occurring in the meeting.  

The Sub-Committee also considered whether it would be in the public interest to investigate the matter in relation to a possible standards breach and agreed that as the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

The Sub-Committee received an update from the Head of Legal Services, on complaints CoC128512, CoC128671 and CoC128825 and it was,

Resolved:

To note the update on COC128512, COC128671 and COC128825 and to
receive further updates on the agreed Alternative Resolution when available.

The Sub-Committee received an update on Complaint CoC131319, from the Head of Legal Services.

During the discussion on the decision of the Monitoring Officer, the Sub-Committee questioned the level of interest that the Subject Member had with regards to the matter being discussed at the council meeting in question.

The Sub-Committee also noted that the Subject Member, although as stated in the update, was no longer a member of the Salisbury City Council (SCC), did still remain a member of Wiltshire Council and therefore still held a position of public office. Discussion around the public perception of the reasons for the decision on the complaint, raised some concern.

The Sub-Committee asked the Head of Legal Services to clarify whether there were options available to them, other than to note the update, should they not agree with the decision.

The Head of Legal Services clarified that the investigation which had been carried out had determined that the level of interest the Subject Member had was a personal interest and that despite the interest not being a pecuniary interest, it should have been declared by the Subject Member for openness.

The Head of Legal Services then identified that the decision of the Monitoring Officer had been based on a recent High Court decision where the Judge had ruled that as the Subject Member had ceased to be a member of a council, the complaint would stop.

The Sub-Committee queried the criteria, in particular the option of ‘exceptional circumstances’ as set out at 3.1 c:

·         That the member remains a member of the relevant council, or, if not, that there are exceptional circumstances to justify a decision that it is in the public interest to continue to consider the complaint.

The Head of Legal Services noted that in light of new case law, the criteria may need to be reviewed and that he would take the matter back to the Monitoring Officer for consideration.

It was,

Resolved;

To note the update on Complaint COC131319.