Agenda item
Code of Conduct Complaint received in respect of a Parish Councillor
To consider a complaint of breach of the Code of Conduct received in respect of a Parish Councillor and determine next steps.
Minutes:
Members considered a report which set out a Code of Conduct complaint received in respect of a Parish Councillor. Details of the complaint were presented in the private report.
Members were asked to decide whether to:
A. rule that the complaint is out of scope, or
B. rule that the complaint is in scope and choose either to:
i) take no further action
ii) seek to resolve the matter informally, or
iii) refer the matter for investigation.
Having considered all the information provided, and the advice of the Independent Person at the meeting, it was
Resolved: That Option B(ii) be approved.
The Assessment sub-committee ruled that the complaint, if proven, could constitute a breach of the code of conduct.
The sub-committee’s decision was to resolve the matter informally by way of provision of training for all members on the appropriate use of email accounts, particularly for dual-hatted members who sit on more than one authority, along with the development and sharing of appropriate protocols.
Reason: Elected members are political, and it is therefore appropriate that the content of their emails is treated differently from those of officers of a council. It is reasonable to expect some political content in emails that emanate from an elected member so long as this does not constitute campaigning for a candidate or political party during a statutory election period.
Some elected members sit on multiple authorities, and appropriate protocols should be developed, and training provided to members, setting out clearly the restrictions in terms of use of email accounts and the security risks of, for example, using a CYC account for parish council business.
The sub-committee also noted the involvement of the clerk, the Proper Officer of the Parish Council, in the issue that was the subject of the complaint, and the responsibility they hold in terms of ensuring they are not sharing inappropriate content with members.
Supporting documents:
-
JSC Sub Public Report 1 May 25, item 19.
PDF 342 KB View as HTML (19./1) 81 KB - Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 19./2 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 19./3 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 19./4 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 19./5 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 19./6 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 19./7 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 19./8 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 19./9 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 19./10 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 19./11 is restricted