Minutes:
Preamble
A complaint was received from Raymond Bowler regarding the alleged conduct of Cllr Mike Hewitt of Wiltshire Council.
The Complainant stated that he had been in correspondence with the Subject Member since 11 October 2019 regarding surface water flooding from the public highway onto his neighbour’s land, which then affected land on his boundary. The Complainant had also raised this issue via the Council’s website at the beginning of September.
The Complainant stated that remedial work began on 8 October, although, as at the date of his complaint, it was still listed as ‘referred’.
The Subject Member responded to the Complainant acknowledging that the work was underway and added that the Complainant should contact him if he had any further concerns. The Complainant contacted the Subject Member again to inform him that, as at 20 October, the complaint was still marked as ‘referred’. He followed that up with a chasing email on 26 October, requesting a reply. The Subject Member responded on 27 October stating that he had forwarded the details to the Council’s Drainage Engineer.
The Complainant’s issue was that the Subject Member did not provide him with information following the notification on 3 September and that he failed to reply to the Complainant’s email of 20 October.
The Complainant considers that, by these failings, the Subject Member failed to show leadership and accountability as required by the Wiltshire Council Code of Conduct
The Sub-Committee were satisfied that the initial tests of the assessment criteria had been met, including that the member was and remains a member of Wiltshire, 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 that Code of Conduct. Further, if it was felt it would be a breach, whether it was still appropriate under the assessment criteria to refer the matter for investigation.
In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took into account the original complaint, the response of the Subject Member, the initial assessment decision of the Representative of the Monitoring Officer to take no further action, and the request for a review by the Complainant.
The Sub-Committee also considered a written statement from the Complainant at the Review Sub-Committee meeting on 7 February 2020. Neither party was in attendance.
Conclusion
The Complainant had raised their dissatisfaction with a lack of response from the Subject Member in relation to a further email not referenced in the initial assessment decision as well as what they considered inappropriate comments made by an officer when logging the complaint.
The Sub-Committee considered there was no justification to overturn the initial assessment decision. A failure to respond to emails, even if discourteous, would not even if proven be a matter which rose to the level of a breach of the Code of Conduct. Comments regarding the administrative processing of the complaint also had no bearing on assessing whether the alleged matters amounted to a potential breach of the Code.
Decision
In accordance with the approved arrangements for resolving standards complaints adopted by Council on 26 June 2012, which came into effect on 1 July 2012 and after hearing from the Independent Person, the Review Sub-Committee determined to take no further action in respect of the complaint.