Minutes:
Preamble
A complaint had been made by Councillor Vanessa Fiorelli (The Complainant) of Melksham Town Council against Councillor Jon Hubbard (The Subject Member), also of Melksham Town Council.
The allegation was that in a social media and email exchange on 24 May 2020 the Subject Member made personal and harassing attacks on the Complainant which amounted to a breach of the Town Council Code of Conduct. Other allegations included that there had been improper use of council resources and an attempt to gain financial or other material benefits for close associates.
In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took into account the original complaint and supporting information, the response of the Subject Member and supporting information, and the report of the Monitoring Officer. The Sub-Committee also considered a verbal statement from the Subject Member given at the meeting, and a written statement from the Complainant, who was not in attendance.
Assessment
In assessing the complaint the Sub-Committee were satisfied that the initial tests of the assessment criteria had been met, including that the Subject Member was and remains a member of Melksham Town Council, and that a copy of the relevant Code of Conduct was provided for the assessment.
The Sub-Committee were satisfied that the content and presentation of the exchanges in the allegations indicated the Subject Member had been acting in their capacity as a member.
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.
Conclusion
The complaint had arisen following a critical post by the Subject Member in response to a comment by the Complainant, and subsequent communications between the two parties, regarding a local matter.
The Sub-Committee noted the high protections afforded to political speech and freedom of expression, and the need to balance these against the impact on the Complainant. It did not consider that the initial comments made as part of a political debate, if proven, could be considered as having risen to the level of a breach. It also did not consider that the subsequent communications between the parties, although causing the Complainant some upset, could be considered, if proven, as having risen to such a level of excessive personal attack that would justify an interference with that right to free political expression.
The Sub-Committee also did not consider the allegations included justification for suggesting a misuse of council resources or an attempt to gain financial benefit. Whilst it perhaps could be updated, an old photo of the Subject Member wearing a chain of office did not make their comments as part of a political debate improper.
The Sub-Committee noted reference to events during the early stages of Covid-19 pandemic and communication between the parties. This element of the complaint was submitted beyond the 20 working days from when the Complainant became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the matters giving rise to complaint, and the Sub-Committee did not consider that there were exceptional circumstances to investigate the matter. Notwithstanding this, the Sub-Committee did not consider the alleged behaviours, if proven, were capable of rising to the level of a breach of the Code.
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.