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

Cllr Sam Pearce Kearney – who was substituted by Cllr Derek Walters

Cllr Richard Britton

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2022 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 procedure and criteria 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 Numbers53onwards, 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 was submitted by Richard Culverhouse (the clerk) on the behalf of Heywood Parish Council (the Complainant), which related to the conduct of Councillor Frances Morland (the Subject Member) who is a member of Heywood Parish council. 

Preamble

The Sub-Committee considered a request made in writing by the Subject Member to defer the consideration of the complaint and noted the guidance, as set out in the Meeting Procedure, paras 4.3 and 4.2 on pages 12 of the agenda pack and agreed to proceed with the assessment. 

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the initial tests of the assessment criteria had been met, in that the Subject Member was and remained a member of Heywood Parish Council and that a copy of the relevant Codes of Conduct had been provided for the assessment.

The Sub-Committee therefore had to decide whether the alleged behaviour would, if proven, amount to a breach of the 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.

In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took into account the original complaint and supporting information, and the report of the Monitoring Officer.

Discussion

The complaint relates to allegations that the Subject Member had not fulfilled the actions which were agreed by way of an alternative resolution to three previous, linked complaints against him.

After receiving legal advice, the Sub-Committee noted that, if the allegations were proved, it would be difficult to establish on the balance of probabilities, that a breach had occurred for the following reasons:

a)    It would be hard to establish evidentially that the undertaking was given for or on behalf of either the Parish Council or for constituents.

b)    Therefore, there is a very high probability if the matter progressed that in law the undertakings given would be determined to be personal undertakings.

c)    In judicial or quasi- judicial processes any undertakings should be accompanied by identified sanctions/consequences for non-compliance rather than being subject to a further complaint. 

d)    Alternative resolution was incorporated within the light touch model adopted by the Council with a view to resolution by concession rather than sanction.

e)    The original decision did not have any sanctions for non-compliance. This is consistent with the light touch process adopted. 

f)     In respect of the three original complaints the Sub-committee had made a final determination of no future action based on the personal undertakings given and the expectation that the member would maintain an integrity in upholding the personal undertakings he had given.

g)    There is no justifiable legal basis for setting aside that earlier determination and obliging the Subject Member to face the original complaints without running the risk of that decision being successfully challenged. 

h)    Any failure by a member to abide by a personal undertaking in such a situation would fall to be determined by the electors and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

A complaint was submitted by Mr Nigel Valentine and Mr Jason Abbott (the Complainants), regarding the conduct of Councillor Tony Trotman (the Subject Member), a member of Wiltshire Council and Calne Town Council. 

Preamble

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the initial tests of the assessment criteria had been met, in that the Subject Member was and remains a member of Wiltshire Council and Calne Town Council and that a copy of the relevant Codes of Conduct had been provided for the assessment.

The Sub-Committee therefore had to decide whether the alleged behaviour would, if proven, amount to a breach of the 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.

In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took into account the original complaint and supporting and additional information, and the report of the Monitoring Officer.

The Sub-Committee also considered the written statements of the Subject Member and the Complainants who were not in attendance at the meeting.

Discussion

The complaint concerns an incident on 21 June 2022 where the Complainants state that the Subject Member made a visit to their property following a complaint he had received by a neighbour, regarding the Complainants use of an area of land in front of their property, owned by Green Square.

The complaint was accompanied by a video recording of the visit on 21 June 2022 and further information regarding a subsequent matter of an alleged complaint to Green Square in respect of the Complainants, made by the Subject Member following his visit.

The Complainants allege that the Subject Member, during his visit:

a)    Incorrectly stated that some wood placed on their driveway had been there for two years, rather than two days;

b)    Dismissed their allegations of receiving “homophobic spurious vexatious complaints every year” when they fly the Pride flag;

c)    Told them the name of the person who had submitted a complaint about them, which they consider to be a potential data breach;

d)    Visited them with the purpose of intimidating them on behalf of their neighbours, whom the Subject Member described as personal friends of his. The Complainants also allege the visit to have been inappropriate and amounting to harassment.

The Subject Member contends that he visited the Complainants to resolve neighbours’ concerns regarding the use of the outside space owned by Green Square and that he acted without malice and did not instigate harassment at any time.

The Subject Member confirms that at the time of his visit, he was not aware of the actions of some of the neighbours, as subsequently seen on the video later provided by the Complainants and furthermore states that he had no personal relationship with the Complainants’ neighbours.

The Subject Member further contends that he had never discussed flying the Pride flag with the Complainants and had not contacted Green Square regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.