Minutes:
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 the Complainants at any time.
Conclusion
The Complaint relates to a visit by the Subject Member to the Complainants’ property, following complaints from neighbours about the use of the land on or adjacent to their property.
The Sub-Committee noted that there appeared to be a history of disputes involving the surrounding neighbours and the Complainants as relayed during the video recording.
The Sub-Committee felt that this had escalated into a complaint to the Subject Member by a neighbour and as such had subsequently led to his visit to the Complainants’ address to attempt to resolve the dispute, which the Sub Committee agreed was an action regularly carried out by elected members as part of their role.
The Sub-Committee noted the manner of the Subject Member as polite and respectful during the visit to ascertain further information and that he had maintained his composure throughout.
The Sub-Committee considered the Subject Member’s use of the term ‘Traditional’ and felt that whilst it could be regarded in different ways and that some may be upset by this use, but as it was possible that he had been referring to the neighbours of the Complainants as having resided on the estate for many years it would be difficult for the use of this term on its own to amount to a breach of the code..
The Sub-Committee felt that it was possible that the Complainants had been subjected to poor behaviour as a result of neighbourly disputes which may have amounted to a matter to be reported to the Police.
However, the Sub-Committee considered that it appeared that the Subject Member had unknowingly been drawn into the dispute whilst acting as a constituent member trying to resolve an issue reported to them involving constituents. The Sub-Committee recognised that attempting to resolve such disputes between constituents is something that elected members are likely to see as part of their role as community leaders and that it would be unfortunate if taking that community leadership role was misconstrued as taking sides in any dispute.
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.