Issue - items at meetings - Complaint against a Member of a Council covered by the Joint Standards Committee

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.

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

Paragraph 34 Decision Notice (Hearing)

Dated: 24/04/2024

Date of Complaint

16/10/2023

Date of Initial Assessment by DMO

20/10/2023

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 Person’s views were provided to the Panel and taken into account at all relevant times in the procedure. The Independent Person was not a voting member 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 and one complainant 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 staff and public confidence in the ability to raise complaints.

The Complaint

On 16th October 2023 the Monitoring Officer received a complaint from an officer of the Council (Officer A) alleging that Cllr Warters had breached the Code of Conduct by arranging by copying a number of members of the public and Parish Councillors into a formal complaint that he had made about the officer’s conduct.

On the same day, Officer B, who is Officer A’s line manager, also made a complaint to the Monitoring Officer. The complaint related to the same incident i.e. the copying of the complaint about Officer A to third parties, but gave greater detail as to why this was considered to be a breach of both the Member/Officer Protocol and the Member Code of Conduct.

Decision – Findings of fact on the balance of probability

The Panel members considered the report of the Investigating Officer and the supplementary pack comprising two additional emails presented by the subject member and one email from officer A.

The Panel heard from the Investigating Officer that Cllr Warters had declined to contribute to the investigation and declined to attend the hearing. The subject member made no representations challenging the facts contained in the investigating officer’s report and consequently witnesses were called.

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

1. Cllr Warters intentionally copied a number of members of the public into correspondence relating to the complaint against Officer A;

2. In doing so, Cllr Warters acted in breach of para 4.4 of the Protocol for Officer / Member Relations;

3. The actions of Cllr Warters created a real possibility that the reputation of Officer A would be damaged and their working relationship with the persons copied into the email would be undermined.

Was there ... view the full decision text for item 12

The Panel considered a complaint from an officer of the Council (Officer A) alleging that Cllr Warters had breached the Code of Conduct by arranging by copying a number of members of the public and Parish Councillors into a formal complaint that he had made about the officer’s conduct.

On the same day, Officer B, who is Officer A’s line manager, also made a complaint to the Monitoring Officer. The complaint related to the same incident i.e. the copying of the complaint about Officer A to third parties, but gave greater detail as to why this was considered to be a breach of both the Member/Officer Protocol and the Member 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 report of the Investigating Officer and the supplementary pack comprising two additional emails presented by the subject member and one email from officer A.

The Panel heard from the Investigating Officer that Cllr Warters had declined to contribute to the investigation and declined to attend the hearing. The subject member made no representations challenging the facts contained in the investigating officer’s report and consequently witnesses were called.

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

i. Cllr Warters intentionally copied a number of members of the public into correspondence relating to the complaint against Officer A;

ii. In doing so, Cllr Warters acted in breach of para 4.4 of the Protocol for Officer / Member Relations;

iii. The actions of Cllr Warters created a real possibility that the reputation of Officer A would be damaged and their working relationship with the persons copied into the email would be undermined.

Having considered the Investigating Officer’s report and the Local Government Association guidance and advice of the Deputy Monitoring Officer,the panel

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

Reason:

· Cllr Warters is an experienced member of more than one local authority and can be taken to be familiar with the requirements in relation to officer/member relations;

· Cllr Warters has not acknowledged that there may have been a breach of the Code;

· The lack of engagement with the investigation process;

· The absence of any commitment to avoiding similar breaches in the future.

Sanctions:

Sanctions:The Panel considered what, if any sanctions should be imposed for the breach. In doing so they

Resolved:

i. Formal censure; and

ii. Restriction of communication with staff in the relevant service area to officers of Assistant Director level and above, such communication to be professional in tone and in all other respects in accordance with the principles set out in the Protocol on Officer Member Relations.

The Panel further recommended that the Monitoring Officer should carry out a review of the information security implications of the use by Cllr Warters of his personal email address for Council business and ... view the full minutes text for item 12

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 12)