Report (Pages 15 - 16)
App A1 - Complaint and Submission Information(Pages 17 - 54)
App A2 - Relevant Council Code of Conduct (Pages 55 - 58)
App A3 - Supplementary Information (Pages 59 - 60)
App A4 - Subject Members’ Response (Pages 61 - 72)
App B - Initial Assessment (Pages 73 - 78)
App C - Request for Review (Pages 79 - 80)
Minutes:
The Sub-Committee considered a complaint against all the members of Wilcot and Huish with Oare Parish Council who it was alleged by their conduct raising concerns around the complainants had breached their Code of Conduct. This was alleged to be because they had failed to promote and maintain high standards of behaviour, failed to uphold the Nolan principles, failed to show respect and failed to use the resources of the council in accordance with its requirements.
The Sub-Committee went through the initial tests required by the local assessment criteria, and agreed with the assessment of the Deputy Monitoring Officer that the complaint related to the subject members, that they were in office at the time of the alleged incident, and were acting in their capacities as councillors. They therefore then had to determine whether the remaining assessment criteria were met and, if so, whether the matters alleged in the complaint were, if proven, capable of breaching the Code of Conduct of the Parish Council.
In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee relied upon the original complaint and supporting information, the response of the subject members, the initial assessment and the additional information submitted by the Complainants in their request for a review of the initial decision to take no further action. They also took into account the comments made by the complainants and the three subject members (Dawn Wilson, Richard Fleet and Nicky Fleet) who attended the review sub-committee meeting.
As detailed by the Deputy Monitoring Officer, paragraph 3.1 of the local assessment criteria requires that a complaint against a member must be made within 20 days of the date on which the complainant became aware of the matter giving rise to the complaint. The principal complaint related to comments made by the subject members at the meeting of the Parish Council on 26 May 2015, although reference was also made to discussion of related issues at other meetings on 5 August 2015, 10 November 2015 and 14 January 2016. The references in the complaint were, therefore, to actions or comments made that occurred (and which the complainants were aware of) more than 20 working days before the complaint was submitted.
The Sub-Committee therefore accepted the reasoning of the Deputy Monitoring Officer that the complaint was required to be dismissed due to being submitted out of time.
However, notwithstanding its decision to dismiss the complaint for the reason stated above, for the avoidance of doubt the Sub-Committee decided to assess the complaint to address how it would have determined it had it been submitted within the required timescales.
From the submissions of all parties it was apparent there were ongoing disputes between the complainants and the Parish Council in relation to alleged breaches of planning conditions at the complainants’ publican business. The existence of any breaches was strongly disputed by the complainants, who alleged in turn that the behaviour of the subject members in the manner and repetition of raising concerns without substance, in their view, was conduct which was in breach of the relevant Code of Conduct, and in particular the seven Nolan Principles on standards in public life.
The issue therefore came down to whether, in raising and discussing the concerns regarding the complainants at a public parish council meeting and subsequently publishing minutes of those discussions, the subject members’ behaviour was in breach of the Code. It was not within the remit of the Sub-Committee or the standards regime to determine the veracity of any allegations of planning breaches.
It was felt that while the complainants were in dispute with the Parish Council over the number and provenance of alleged concerns regarding their business, the existence of such concerns, whether they were valid or not, would be a relevant topic to be raised and discussed at a parish council meeting. The Sub-Committee therefore had to consider if the subject members through specific behaviours had breached the Code when raising the topic. The Sub-Committee could not consider the merits of any actual resolution of the parish council, as that was not a code of conduct issue.
After consideration, the Sub-Committee determined that on the evidence as presented the decision to discuss the alleged breaches, and thus the requirement to publish minutes relating them, in open session, was a procedural matter not a code of conduct matter. While the complainants were understandably aggrieved by what they regard as unfounded comments, merely raising them at a parish council meeting in the way that had been done here was not in itself a breach of a code of conduct.
The Sub-Committee therefore upheld the reasoning and the initial assessment decision of the Deputy Monitoring Officer to dismiss the complaint. However, they were also supportive of the recommendation to make the Associate Director of Economy and Planning (who has responsibility for Development Management) aware of the issues ongoing in the parish, and to ask that he review the issues and assist in coming to a resolution between the complainants and subject members.
Resolved:
To take no further action in respect of the complaint.