Agenda item

A complaint A complaint was submitted by Councillor Richard Clewer, the Complainant, regarding the conduct of Councillor Paul Sample, the Subject Member, a member of Wiltshire Council.

The complaint related to the Subject Member’s conduct regarding information posted on Facebook about the Council’s preferred operator for the reopening of Salisbury City Hall while the information was still deemed confidential by the Council.

The Sub-Committee considered whether the alleged conduct would, if proven, represent a breach of the following section of the Code:

4.1 I do not disclose information:

4.1.1 given to me in confidence by anyone;

4.1.2 acquired by me which I believe, or ought reasonably to be aware, is of a confidential nature, unless:

4.1.2.1 I have received the consent of a person authorised to give it;

4.1.2.2 I am required by law to do so;

4.1.2.3 The disclosure is made to a third party for the purpose of obtaining professional legal advice provided that the third party agrees not to disclose the information to any other person; or4.1.2.4 The disclosure is:

a) Reasonable and in the public interest; and

b) made in good faith and in compliance with the reasonable requirements of the local authority; and

c) I have consulted the Monitoring Officer prior to its release.

Preamble

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the initial tests set out in Protocol 11 had been met, in that the Subject Member was and remains a member of Wiltshire Council and that he was acting in his official capacity at the time of the alleged incident and that a copy of the relevant Code of Conduct was 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, the response of the Subject Member, the report of the Monitoring Officer and the view of the Independent Person.

The Sub-Committee also considered a verbal statement from the Subject Member who was in attendance at the meeting.

Discussion

The complaint related to allegations that the Subject Member had posted information regarding the award of a contract to run Salisbury’s City Hall on a Facebook group page while the information was still deemed confidential by the Council.

The confidential information was part of a decision taken by Cabinet during a Part 2 session on 21 January 2025, which it had been intended would remain confidential until after the contract had been agreed with the third party.

The Facebook group ‘Re-Open City Hall Now’ where the information was posted on 21 January, had approximately 1,400 members at the time the post was published.

The Subject Member acknowledged he had posted information confirming the successful tenant for the running of Salisbury City Hall on the morning of 21 January 2025.

The Subject Member had stated in response that he did not intend to attend the Cabinet meeting and therefore he was not aware that the information had been deemed confidential. He further stated that no communication had been received to advise members of any planned media embargo on the matter.

The Subject Member, in his response and during his statement, offered an apology for his actions and offered to undertake any additional training on the procurement process that may be considered appropriate, noting that he did not remember ever having received such training previously.

The Sub-Committee considered the context of the Facebook post made by the Subject Member and agreed that, as it included criticism of a political nature, it had been posted in the Subject Member’s capacity in his councillor role.

The Sub-Committee considered the legal guidance highlighting that the Cabinet agenda papers had been published online 5 clear days in advance of the meeting on 21 January 2025 and that from that time, the report for the Salisbury City Hall item was restricted as a Part 2 paper and as such, not available publicly.

The Sub-Committee also noted that a councillor’s guide was included within the Council’s Constitution stating clearly that matters contained within Part 2 papers should not be published in any way.

The Sub-Committee considered the explanation provided by the Subject Member, which was that he was not aware of any restriction on publishing the details of the preferred tenant.

The Sub-Committee discussed the onus on the councillor to make appropriate enquiries in such circumstances, to establish the status of information they intend to publish. The Sub-Committee noted that no such enquiries appeared to have been made by the Subject Member prior to the posting of the information on the Facebook group page.

The Sub-Committee considered the acceptance of the actions by the Subject Member and the offer of an apology.

Conclusion

The Sub-Committee considered that, if proven, publishing confidential information would reach the threshold of breaching the code of conduct. In this case, the Subject Member has admitted to posting the confidential information.  

The Sub-Committee recognised the importance of all elected members ensuring they were well briefed on matters of confidentiality and expectations for upholding the code of conduct, noting the availability to councillors of guidance documents and open channels to seek advice from relevant officers.

The Sub-Committee noted the Subject Member’s offer of an apology for his actions, which it considered would represent an appropriate resolution and that, taking into account the efficient use of public resources, an investigation was not appropriate as set out under paragraph 6.3 of Protocol 11:

6.3 Complaints will not normally be referred for investigation where the Subject Member has offered an apology, a reasonable explanation of the issues, or where the Assessment Sub-Committee considers that the matter can reasonably be addressed by other means. Investigation is normally reserved for serious complaints where alternative options for resolution are not considered appropriate.”

On consideration of the offer of an apology by the Subject Member, the Sub-Committee agreed that it would be appropriate for this apology to be posted publicly, including in the same forum as the Subject Member’s original post, with final details to be determined by the Monitoring Officer.

In summary, the Sub-Committee resolved to refer the matter to the Monitoring Officer for alternative resolution.

It was;

Resolved:

In accordance with Protocol 11 – Arrangements for Handling Code of Conduct Complaints, adopted by Wiltshire Council on 24 July 2024 and after hearing from the Independent Person, the Assessment Sub-Committee determined to refer the complaint to the Monitoring Officer for alternative resolution.