Minutes:
A complaint was submitted by Joanna Horbury, the Complainant, on behalf of the Downton Cuckoo Fair, regarding the conduct of Councillor Gareth Watts, the Subject Member, of Downton Parish Council.
The complaint related to an email sent by the Subject Member to the trustees of the Stockman and Woodlands Trust Charity, disparaging the Cuckoo Fair, including referencing to ‘robbing’ Downton and the surrounding villages.
On 16 March 2023 the Sub-Committee determined that, if proven, the allegations could amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct, and referred the matter for investigation.
That investigation report had concluded that the Subject Member had been or would reasonably have been regarded as acting in an official capacity by the recipients of the email. It also concluded that the Subject Member’s actions did reach the threshold of representing a breach of paragraph 1.1 of the Code of Conduct: I treat other councillors and members of the public with respect. It found that the actions did not reach the threshold of representing a breach of the provisions of the Code in respect of honesty.
In accordance with Protocol 11 of the Constitution, arrangements for dealing with Code of Conduct complaints:
7.1Following receipt of an investigation report, where the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Independent person considers that the matter can reasonably be resolved without the need for a hearing, they will consult with the Parties to seek to agree a fair resolution which also helps to ensure higher standards of conduct for the future.
7.2Alternative resolution may involve mediation and may include the Member accepting that their conduct was unacceptable and offering an apology, and/or remedial action by the Council or the Parish Council as the case may be. If the Member complies with the suggested resolution the Monitoring Officer will report the matter to the Assessment Sub-Committee and the relevant Parish Council where appropriate, for information, but will take no further action.
7.3The Member may elect to proceed to a hearing rather than accept alternative resolution.
The Monitoring Officer had therefore accordingly engaged with the Subject Member, and proposed alternative resolution. This had resulted in the Subject Member sending an email to the recipients of their original email retracting their comments.
Conclusion
The Sub-Committee considered the report and responses of the parties in advance of their meeting. They considered whether the matter could be deferred pending further information or referred to Hearing. They were subsequently advised of the provisions of Protocol 11 and procedures in relation to alternative resolution post an investigation report.
The Sub-Committee therefore reviewed the reports regarding the complaint as well as representations received in advance of their meeting. They did consider the nature and scope of the retraction which had been provided and the form in which it had been made, which was in a similar fashion as the original incident. However, they noted the arrangements for dealing with Code of Conduct complaints, and the Monitoring Officer’s conclusion that alternative resolution could reasonably obviate the need for a hearing in this case, and his conclusion that the Subject Member had complied with the proposed resolution and this had been communicated to the Complainant.
Accordingly, although the Sub-Committee appreciated that the Complainant was not satisfied with that resolution and would suggest that a more direct reference of apology within any retraction may have been preferable, they noted the conclusion of the Monitoring Officer that no further action was to be taken in respect of the Complaint.
Resolved:
To note the complaint had been resolved through alternative resolution by the Monitoring Officer.