Issue - meetings
Complaint against a Member of a Council covered by the Joint Standards Committee
Meeting: 18/12/2023 - Joint Standards Committee Hearings Sub-Committee (Item 4)
PDF 164 KBTo consider a code of conduct complaint brought against a Parish Councillor, which has been referred to the Hearings Sub-Committee for determination following an investigation.
Additional documents:
- Private - Report final v2 , View reasons restricted (4/2)
- Annex 1- Complaint , View reasons restricted (4/3)
- Annex 2 - Osbaldwick PC Code of Conduct , View reasons restricted (4/4)
- Annex 3 - Comments from Cllr Warters , View reasons restricted (4/5)
Decision:
Joint Standards Committee
Hearings Sub Committee – 18 December 2023
Code of Conduct Complaints Relating To City of York Council and Osbaldwick Parish Council
Paragraph 34 Decision Notice (Hearing)
|
Date of Complaint
|
16/04/2023 |
|
|
Date of Initial Assessment by JSC |
26/06/2023
|
|
|
Hearing Date |
18/12/2023
|
|
|
Independent Person
|
Joe Leigh |
|
|
Panel The Panel comprised Councillor C Runciman (Chair), Councillor T Fisher and Parish Councillor M Waudby. The Panel is not required to be politically balanced.
The Independent Person’s view was 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, namely “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 and so long, as in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The individuals concerned were the subject member, the witnesses and the complainant. Whilst the Panel was aware the subject member had expressed that they had no interest in the matter being confidential, that was not the sole viewpoint to consider. There was a clear interest in maintaining public confidence in bringing complaints forward without fear of unwanted public attention.
The Complaint On 16 April 2023 the Monitoring Officer received a complaint from a resident alleging that Cllr Mark Warters had breached the Code of Conduct by arranging for his election leaflet to be circulated with the Osbaldwick Parish Council Spring newsletter (which was very similar in appearance). The resident expressed concern that the newsletter was publicly funded and its distribution at the same time and as Cllr Warters' election literature was designed to attribute the achievements of the Parish Council to Cllr Warters and thereby constituted a misuse of resources and an attempt to gain an advantage, contrary to the Parish 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 and from the Parish Clerk. They 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. They noted that the subject member had emphatically declined to participate in the investigation and hearing but were prepared to accept two late testimonials on behalf of the subject member. None of the subject member or supporter comments however went to the facts of the case which were effectively undisputed. The Panel accepted the investigating officer’s analysis of the facts with one minor amendment and concluded as follows:
We make the following findings on the balance of probabilities:
1. Cllr Warters prepared and arranged the printing of both documents and failed to ensure that distribution ... view the full decision text for item 4 |
||
Minutes:
The Panel considered a complaint made by aresident against Cllr Mark Warters alleging that he had breached the Code of Conduct by arranging for his election leaflet to be circulated with the Osbaldwick Parish Council Spring newsletter (which was very similar in appearance). The resident expressed concern that the newsletter was publicly funded and its distribution at the same time and as Cllr Warters' election literature was designed to attribute the achievements of the Parish Council to Cllr Warters and thereby constituted a misuse of resources and an attempt to gain an advantage, contrary to the Parish 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 and from the Parish Clerk. They 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. They noted that the subject member had emphatically declined to participate in the investigation and hearing but were prepared to accept two late testimonials on behalf of the subject member. The Panel accepted the investigating officer’s analysis of the facts with one minor amendment and concluded:
1. Cllr Warters prepared and arranged the printing of both documents and failed to ensure that distribution was carried out separately;
2. The format and layout of the documents was strikingly similar;
3. Cllr Warters arranged for other members of the Parish Council to distribute some or all of the documents alongside copies of the Parish Council newsletter. This amounted to the use of Parish Council resources;
4. At least some of the Parish Council members delivered the leaflets together with one document tucked inside the other;
5. It was reasonably foreseeable that delivering the two documents in this way would create the impression that he was trying to strengthen his campaign for re-election by associating it with the work and achievements of the Parish Council;
6. By acting in this way, when it was reasonably foreseeable that the impression of seeking an unfair advantage would be created.
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 paragraph 3 of the Code of Conduct be upheld.
Reason: The delivery of the Parish newsletters used council resources and the impression created by the similarity of the two documents and their delivery together was foreseeably favourable to his election campaign.
Sanctions
The Panel considered what, if any sanctions should be imposed for the breach. In doing so they observed that to take no action in respect of a clear breach would not be appropriate, and
Resolved: That the Monitoring Officer write an open letter advising the Parish Council should arrange training for the ... view the full minutes text for item 4