Agenda item

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 Subject Members actions as alleged, would not amount to a breach of the code of conduct, an investigation was not warranted.  

Conclusion

The Sub-Committee noted that the behaviour appeared to arise out of a historic clash of personalitiesbetween the Complainant who had previously been involved with the Emergency Planning work on behalf of the parish council and the Subject Member.  

The Sub-Committee noted that the Subject Member as Chairman of a council meeting was required to keep order during periods of disruption and that on occasion raising his voice would be necessary to be heard over the raised voices of others in attendance.  

The Sub-Committee noted that the 3-minute time slot permitted for registered speakers was actually ‘up to’ 3 minutes and if the entire 3 minutes was not used during the reading of the statement then the remainder was not available to be used to come back for a second go to answer or ask further questions of the Committee. Therefore, as the statement was read in its entirety, the Subject Member, as chair, was entitled to decline to give the Complainant further speaking time and also to bring the meeting back to order. 

The Sub-Committee therefore found that the alleged behaviour, if proved, would not amount to a breach of the Code and determined to take no further action.  

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. 

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 take no further action on the complaint.