Agenda item

A complaint was submitted by Ms Ali Robinson, the Complainant (and Clerk to Calne Town Council), regarding the conduct of Councillor Robert MacNaughton, the Subject Member, a member of Calne Town Council.

The complaint related to the Subject Member’s conduct at a Council-run event on 30 November 2024.

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

1. Respect

As a Councillor:

1.1 I treat other Councillors and members of the public with respect. 1.2 I treat local authority employees, employees and representatives of partner organisations and those volunteering for the local authority with respect and respect the role they play.

2.3 I promote equalities and do not discriminate unlawfully against any person.

5. Disrepute

As a councillor:

5.1 I do not bring my role or local authority into disrepute.

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 Calne Town 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 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 verbal statements from the Complainant and Subject Member, who were both in attendance.

Discussion

The complaint related to the allegations made by the Complainant that on 30 November 2024, at the Council Winter Festival, the Subject Member was staffing Santa’s grotto managing a queue when he made a comment to a female member of Council staff insinuating that Santa was inside the grotto masturbating.

The Subject Member stated in response that on 30 November 2024, whilst manning the queue for Santa’s grotto, he asked one of the dads to his left if he knew what was happening, to which the man allegedly replied, ‘Perhaps Santa is having a w**k’.

The Subject Member stated that he then repeated the dialogue of a clip from the television programme, “8 out of 10 cats”, which contained the same word.

The Subject-Member stated that nobody else heard his remarks; neither adult nor child as the Subject Member was careful enough to make sure.

The Complainant stated that a member of the Council’s Personnel Sub-Committee (PSC) met with the Subject Member on 18 December 2024, where it was agreed that the Subject Member would self-report his actions to the Monitoring Officer at Wiltshire Council.

The Complainant stated that an earlier meeting including some members of the PSC, the Clerk and the Subject Member had taken place in February 2024 to discuss other incidents which had raised concern. It is alleged that at that time, the Subject Member had been advised on behaviour, the impact to the Council and the escalation process for dealing with further complaints.

The Complainant stated that after the Subject Member did not self-report the matter to the Monitoring Officer at Wiltshire Council, the Complainant obtained further guidance and submitted the complaint.

The Subject Member in response stated that following the discussion with the PSC, the Subject Member discussed it with a colleague with knowledge of the Standards regime, on the process of self-reporting, where the Subject Member stated he was advised that because the Subject Member had been repeating verbatim and relaying a phrase somebody had said to him, the matter was not appropriate for Standards.

The Subject Member stated that he drafted a letter to the Monitoring Officer in preparation to self-report the incident and sent the letter to others for editing, however the letter was not ultimately sent, which on reflection, the Subject Member stated that he believed may have been a mistake.

The Subject Member stated that on 13 January 2025, a version of events reached another member of the Council, who contacted the Subject Member.

The Subject Member stated that he contacted the Chairman of Standards Assessment Sub-Committee to seek further advice.

The Subject Member, on reflection, stated that taking advice from multiple sources may have been unwise and agreed with the Complainant that he should not have made the remarks at the event.

The Subject Member had also stated that he promised not to behave in such a way again and offered an apology for his actions.

The Sub-Committee noted that there was a delay in the Monitoring Officer receiving the complaint from the Complainant due at least in part to the Subject Member’s prior commitment to self-report. Therefore, although it had been received after the normal 20 working day timescale, it was appropriate that the matter still be assessed, in accordance with paragraph 12.1 of Protocol 11.

The Sub-Committee noted the reference to previous incidents. However, it was agreed that only the details of the specific incident raised in the complaint could be assessed, further noting that all incidents of concern regarding a breach of the Code should be reported independently at the time of incident.

Conclusion

The Sub-Committee noted the Subject Member’s acceptance of his conduct, his recognition of the poor judgement shown and his offer of an apology, with confirmation that he would not repeat such actions again.

The Sub-Committee also noted the Subject Member had recognised that his actions following the incident had been unwise.

The Sub-Committee noted the importance of elected members demonstrating higher standards of behaviour whilst acting in their official capacity.

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

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.”

The Sub-Committee agreed that it would be appropriate for this apology to be provided by the Subject Member in writing to the clerk of the Council for circulation by them to other Council staff as appropriate.

In summary, the Sub-Committee therefore resolved to refer the matter to the Monitoring Officer for alternative resolution as set out above.

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.