Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

Councillor Sam Pearce-Kearney, who was substituted by Councillor Trevor Carbin.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2024 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.

In relation to complaint COC150777 Cllr Richard Britton declared that he was a member of the same Conservative Party Constituency Association as the Subject Member. He stated he had been contacted by the Subject Member prior to the meeting, however he confirmed he not entered into conversation or discussion about the complaint. He therefore advised that he would remain part of the Sub-Committee's deliberations and consider the matter with an open mind.

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 Numbers 12 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

Assessment of Complaint COC150528

A Complaint was submitted by Ms Megan Stratton, the Complainant, regarding the conduct of Councillor Graham Greener, the Subject Member, of Brinkworth Parish Council. 

The Complaint related to a phone conversation between the Subject Member and the Complainant on 6 February 2024.

The Complainant alleged that during a phone conversation, to discuss a footpath on land owned by the Complainant, the Subject Member’s behaviour was inappropriate.

The allegations in summary related to a discussion about a footpath and a ditch near to the Complainant’s land where they kept horses. During the conversation the Subject Member stated he was representing Brinkworth Parish Council following raised concerns, relating to flooding. It was alleged that the Subject Member went on to blame the horses for causing flooding of a footpath and for spreading mud to another nearby ditch, due to the horses not being fenced off appropriately when the Complainant had previously been asked to do so.

It was further alleged that in response to the Complainant raising concerns relating to lose dogs, the Subject Member threatened to shoot her horses, criticising the Complainant’s management of the horses and mocking her mental health.  

The Complainant believed the Subject Member to have breached the following
sections of the Code:

1. He/she shall behave in such a way that a reasonable person would regard

as respectful.

2. He/she shall not act in a way which a reasonable person would regard as

bullying or intimidating.

3. He/she shall not seek to improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage

on any person.

Preamble

The Sub-Committee were satisfied that the initial tests of the assessment criteria had been met, including that the Subject Member was and remained a member of Brinkworth 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 various 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 or alternative resolution.

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

There were no additional verbal or written statements at the meeting for consideration by the Sub-Committee.

Discussion

The Sub-Committee considered the summary of allegations as set out in the report.

The Complainant believed the Subject Member’s behaviour during the phone call to have been rude and inappropriate.

The Complainant alleged that the Subject Member blamed her horses for causing flooding to another ditch, which was on land owned by a neighbour who it is alleged oversaw footpaths on behalf of the parish council.

The Complainant alleged that during the Subject member mocked her mental health.

The Complainant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Assessment of Complaint COC150748

A complaint was submitted by Mr Nigel Valentine and Mr Jason Abbott, the Complainants, regarding the conduct of Councillor Terry Couchman, the Subject Member, of Calne Town council. 

The Complaint related to the Subject Member’s Facebook posts on the ‘Calne Central’ group page on 17 February 2024. A summary of the main allegations included the Subject Member commenting “go screw yourself" and "its because of tossers like you I'm retiring".

The Complainants believed the Subject Member to have breached the following
sections of the Code:

1.1 I treat other councillors and members of the public with respect.

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

Preamble

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the initial tests of the assessment criteria had been met, including that the Subject Member was and remains a member of Calne 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 or alternative resolution.

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

The Sub-Committee also considered the written statement from the Complainants provided at the Assessment Sub-Committee meeting. 

Discussion

The Sub-Committee considered the summary of allegations as set out in the report, noting that any allegations relating to previous complaints and/or other elected members other than the Subject Member would not form part of the Sub-Committee’s considerations. 

The Complainants believed that the Subject Member had failed to treat them with respect during participation in an online discussion on a Facebook group and in doing so the Subject Member had brought his role and his local authority into disrepute.

The Subject Member contended that his comments had been made in response to abusive, harassing and dishonest comments made by the Complainants on Facebook posts in groups and on pages he managed on social media.

The Subject Member stated that he had ‘responded in kind’ to one of the Complainants, asking him to desist and warning him that he would be reported and blocked. When the behaviour did not stop, he reported the Complainant and blocked him on social media sites he managed. 

The Complainants refute the allegations made in the Subject Member’s response to the complaint, stating that they had not made dishonest, abusive, or harassing comments towards the Subject Member on Facebook as alleged.

The Sub-Committee noted that the Facebook conversation threads referred to by the Complainants appeared to have been deleted and were therefore no longer available.

Conclusion

The Sub-Committee noted that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Assessment of Complaint COC150777

The Sub-Committee noted the decision of the Monitoring Officer to agree to the request of the Complainant, for their details to be kept confidential at this stage of the procedure.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the initial tests of the assessment criteria had been met, including that the Subject Member was and remained a member of Salisbury City Council and that a copy of the relevant Code of Conduct was provided for the assessment.

The Sub-Committee considered whether the Subject Member was acting in their capacity as a member during the alleged actions and having considered several competing factors including that fact that the Subject Member was a Mayor and therefore arguably held to a higher standard and the serious nature of the allegations, agreed that further information regarding the nature of the WhatsApp group was required to make that judgement. The Sub-Committee noted that there was also a Facebook post by the Subject Member that was reported in the media.

The Sub-Committee had to also 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 or alternative resolution.

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

The Sub-Committee also considered the written statement from the Subject Member, provided at the Assessment Sub-Committee meeting.

No parties were in attendance at the Assessment Sub-Committee meeting.  

After discussion, it was:

Resolved:

In accordance with the approved arrangements for resolving standards complaints adopted by Council on 9 July 2019, which came into effect on 1 January 2020 and after hearing from the Independent Person, the Assessment Sub-Committee determined to refer to the Monitoring Officer for Investigation.