Minutes:
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 whether they wished to be represented by a person who had failed to abide by their own personal undertakings.
The Sub-Committee noted that a response from the Subject Member had not been received at the point of publication of the report and considered advice of the Legal Officer in relation to paras 18 – 20 of the report.
The Sub-Committee discussed the current process with regards to sanctions for a breach in compliance with an agreed alternative resolution and noted its disappointment with the options available to them.
Conclusion
The complaint had arisen due to the report from the Parish Council of the Subject Member’s current non-compliance to agreed actions under an alternative resolution, relating to the decision of three linked complaints against the Subject Member, which had been considered by the Sub-Committee on 16 September 2020
The Sub-Committee noted extreme displeasure in the allegations that the Subject Member having not made the apology directly to the former clerk or taken part in the training both, which had been agreed by the Member.
However, it further noted the gaps set out within the alternative resolution arrangements agreed and the legal implications of this, and therefore with hindsight the Sub-Committee felt that this had left the process open to exploitation/failure.
The Sub-Committee therefore requested that the process of alternative resolution be reviewed and tightened up for future assessments.
In summary, the Sub-Committee therefore resolved to take no further action in respect of the complaint.
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 in respect of the complaint.