Issue - meetings

Complaint against a Member of a Council covered by the Joint Standards Committee

 

 

Meeting: 18/04/2024 - Joint Standards Committee Hearings Sub-Committee (Item 8)

8 Complaint against a Member of a Council covered by the Joint Standards Committee (1:32pm) pdf icon PDF 231 KB

To consider a complaint made against a Member of City of York Council, which has been referred to the Hearings Sub-Committee for determination following an investigation.

 

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

City of York Council Constitution Appendix 29: Joint Standards Committee Procedures

 

Paragraph 34 Decision Notice (Hearing)

 

Dated: 18/04/2024                                                       

 

Date of Complaint

 

23/08/2023

Date of Initial Assessment by DMO

30/08/2023

 

Hearing Date

18/04/2024

 

Independent Person

 

Joe Leigh

Panel

The Panel comprised Councillor K Lomas (Chair), Councillor T Fisher and Parish Councillor C Chambers. The Panel is not required to be politically balanced.

 

The Independent Persons’ views were provided to the Panel and taken into account at all relevant times in the procedure. The Independent Persons were not voting members of the Panel.

 

The Hearing

The Panel resolved to exclude the Press and Public from the meeting due to the consideration of exempt information defined as “Information relating to any individual” and “Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual”. They noted that such information is exempt information if the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Whilst the Panel was aware the subject member had expressed that they did not require the matter to be kept confidential, the Panel were mindful that there were other individuals involved, and that there was a need to maintain public confidence in the ability to raise complaints.

 

The Complaint

On 23 August 2023 the Monitoring Officer received a complaint from an officer of the Council alleging that Cllr Mark Warters had breached the Code of Conduct by using racially discriminatory language and behaving in a manner that was disturbing, disrespectful and upsetting. The officer further alleged that Cllr Warters had shared confidential information about a customer with a third party, and that he had displayed aggressive and discourteous behaviour to the wider team over a period of time. The complainant maintained that these actions and behaviours were contrary to the City of York Council Code of Conduct.

 

Decision – Findings of fact on the balance of probability

 

The Panel members considered the evidence gathered by the Investigating Officer from the complainant. The Investigating Officer explained that Cllr Warters had initially agreed to meet to be interviewed; having changed the date of the interview Cllr Warters then advised via email that he would not meet or correspond with the Investigating Officer. In that email, Cllr Warters provided an explanation for his use of the term that the complainant claimed was racially offensive.  The Panel accepted that the subject member had been provided with ample opportunity to contest both the alleged facts and the issue of whether those facts amounted to a breach of the Code. The Panel noted that Cllr Warters refused to co-operate further with the investigation process, however they were prepared to accept a number of late submissions received by Cllr Warters in the days leading up to the Hearing. The Panel adjourned for 15 minutes to allow all members the opportunity to read the submissions received. The Panel considered the submissions did not offer mitigation for the issues referred to by the complainant, and that some of the submissions strengthened the case of  ...  view the full decision text for item 8

Minutes:

The Panel considered a complaint from an officer of the Council alleging that Cllr Mark Warters had breached the Code of Conduct by using racially discriminatory language and behaving in a manner that was disturbing, disrespectful and upsetting. The officer further alleged that Cllr Warters had shared confidential information about a customer with a third party, and that he had displayed aggressive and discourteous behaviour to the wider team over a period of time. The complainant maintained that these actions and behaviours were contrary to the City of York Council Code of Conduct. The matter had been referred to the Hearings Sub-Committee for determination following an investigation.

 

The investigating officer presented his report and responded to questions from the panel. The Panel members considered the evidence gathered by the Investigating Officer from the complainant.

 

The Investigating Officer explained that Cllr Warters had initially agreed to meet to be interviewed; having changed the date of the interview Cllr Warters then advised via email that he would not meet or correspond with the Investigating Officer.

 

In that email, Cllr Warters provided an explanation for his use of the term that the complainant claimed was racially offensive.  The Panel accepted that the subject member had been provided with ample opportunity to contest both the alleged facts and the issue of whether those facts amounted to a breach of the Code.

 

The Panel noted that Cllr Warters refused to co-operate further with the investigation process, however they were prepared to accept a number of late submissions received by Cllr Warters in the days leading up to the Hearing.

 

The Panel adjourned for 15 minutes to allow all members the opportunity to read the submissions received. The Panel considered the submissions did not offer mitigation for the issues referred to by the complainant, and that some of the submissions strengthened the case of the complainant.

 

The Panel accepted the investigating officer’s analysis of the facts with and concluded as follows:

 

i. The use of the term referred to by the complainant can be considered a breach of the Code of Conduct due to its potential to cause distress, irrespective of its factual nature.

ii. Councillor Warters’ aggressive and discourteous communication, while rooted in frustration, is a breach of the Code of Conduct's emphasis on respectful behaviour.

iii. While the sharing of address information might be deemed justifiable in the given circumstances, it raises concerns regarding privacy and confidentiality expectations. The Council's data breach reporting process is therefore the appropriate route to thoroughly assess and determine the implications of this issue.

Having considered the Investigating Officer’s report and the Local Government Association guidance and advice of the Deputy Monitoring Officer, as well as the late submissions provided by Cllr Warters the Panel

 

Resolved:  That the Investigating Officer’s findings that Cllr Warters had breached the code on several counts be upheld;

Reason:     The Panel unanimously agreed that the Code of Conduct had been breached in respect of:

·        Rule 1 (Respect)

·        Rule 2 (Bullying, harassment and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page