Agenda item

To consider 11 complaints submitted in relation to the alleged conduct of 10 members of councils covered by the Joint Standards Committee and to take an initial decision as to whether, and how, these matters should be pursued.

Note: Annex 2 to the report on the above item is to follow.

Members considered a report that presented a series of 11 complaints submitted in relation to the alleged conduct of 10 members of councils covered by the Joint Standards Committee.

Details of the complaints were set out in Annex 1 to the report and the comments of the Independent Persons on each complaint were provided in Annex 2.

The following options were considered in respect of each case:

·        To decide that no further action be taken

·        To refer the matter to the Monitoring Officer for investigation,

·        To consider whether some other action may be appropriate.

Having considered the evidence before them, and taking into consideration the comments of the Independent Persons, Members

Resolved:  That no further action be taken in respect of any of these cases, for the reasons detailed below.

Reasons:   (i)      Case no. 720 – the allegations relating to conduct in 2016 were too old when the complaint was submitted to render any meaningful investigation, and the allegations in relation to conduct in February 2019 do not amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct. 

                   (ii)      Case no. 725 – the statements alleged to have been made do not amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct.

                   (iii)     Case no. 726 – there is no evidence to support the allegation of discrimination and, although the allegation regarding failure to declare an interest might possibly warrant investigation, the subject member is no longer a CYC Councillor and the Joint Standards Committee has no powers to investigate former councillors.

                   (iv)    Case no. 727 -  these allegations relate to the workings of a political group and do not fall under the Code of Conduct.  In addition, the subject member is no longer a CYC Councillor and the Joint Standards Committee has no powers to investigate former councillors.

                   (v)     Case no. 728 – there is no evidence presented to support these allegations.  In addition, three of the four subject members are no longer CYC Councillors and the Joint Standards Committee has no powers to investigate their conduct. 

                   (vi)    Case no. 729 - there is no evidence presented to support these allegations.  In addition, the subject members are no longer CYC councillors and the Joint Standards Committee has no power to investigate their conduct.  Although one subject member remains a Parish Councillor, the conduct that is alleged relates to their position as a CYC Councillor which they no longer hold. 

                   (vii)    Case no. 733 - it is not clear whether the subject member was acting in an official capacity.  The complaint is unclear and there is insufficient information to evidence the allegation of disrespect. 

                   (viii)   Case no. 734 - The subject member is no longer a CYC Councillor and the Joint Standards Committee has no powers to investigate their conduct.

                   (ix)    Case no. 735 - while the subject member remains a Parish Councillor, the allegations relate to conduct in their capacity as a CYC Councillor.  Since the subject member is no longer a CYC Councillor the Joint Standards Committee has no powers to investigate this allegation. 

                   (x)     Case no. 736 - The events occurred at a political meeting and there is no information to substantiate the allegation.  In addition, the subject member is no longer a CYC Councillor and the Joint Standards Committee has no powers to investigate their conduct. 

                   (xi)    Case no. 738 - the alleged conduct is not covered by the Code of Conduct and there is no evidence to support it so that it can be brought under the standards regime.  The allegations relate the administration of a council and the standards regime is not the appropriate way to resolve this complaint.