Assessment of Complaint COC150528
Minutes:
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 expressed concerns of safety, relating to her belief that the Subject Member was a gun dealer.
The Subject Member’s account confirmed that the intention of the call had been to obtain the Complainant’s home address, to enable a letter to be sent out by the clerk, following a discussion around obstructed access to a footpath at a parish council meeting.
The Subject Member did not dispute that they were acting in their capacity as a councillor, however, their account of the conversation was that the Complainant had become agitated and had said that she would shoot people’s dogs if they continued to unsettle her horses. It was in response to that comment that the Subject Member contends he had suggested caution in making such comments, because if the Complainant were to start shooting dogs, then the dogs’ owners may retaliate in a similar manner towards her horses.
The Subject Member disputes the allegation that he blamed the Complainant’s horses for causing flooding, instead he advised that if a drain became blocked by the damage the horses were doing to the ditch, then it may result in flooding and at no time did he say that he would shoot her horses.
The Subject Member confirmed that he was no longer a registered firearms dealer as he had relinquished his licence in 2016.
The Subject Member stated that at the time of the phone calls, he had no knowledge of the Complainant’s mental state and that the allegations of him mocking her mental health were untrue.
Conclusion
The Sub-Committee noted the two quite different accounts of the telephone conversation and, due to there being no other witnesses, agreed that it would not be possible to verify which account was most accurate.
The Sub-Committee noted that the Subject Member had volunteered to call the Complainant on behalf of the parish council, with the purpose of obtaining her address. It was agreed that the conversation as described in both accounts included more of a discussion around the path and the issue of obstruction, which went beyond the original purpose of the call.
The Sub-Committee felt that the Subject Member had overstepped his role during the phone call, and that the details of the matter should have been left to the Clerk of the parish council to formulate in a letter, as agreed as an action by the parish council.
However, the Sub-Committee agreed that, on balance, it was not appropriate under the Local Assessment Criteria to refer the complaint for investigation taking into account the efficient use of resources. This was because an investigation would not be able to establish whether, on the balance of probabilities, a breach of the Code had occurred or not, due to the lack of witnesses to the telephone call in question.
The Sub-Committee, therefore, resolved to take no further action in respect of the complaint.
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 take no further action in respect of the complaint.