| Place: | The Windsor Suite, Wellington Park, Burlington Gardens, Leyland PR25 3AB |
| Present: | Independent member Mr J Holt, Councillors Mr J E J Breakell, Mr F Heyworth, Mr K W Palmer, Mr B Yates and Parish Councillor Mrs M Gelder |
| In attendance: | Councillors Clark, Marsh and Sharratt John Stone (Investigating Officer) John Dakin (Monitoring Officer), David Whelan (Legal Services Manager) and Andy Houlker (Senior Democratic Services Officer) |
| Public attendance: | 1 |
| Other Officers: | Councillor Otter and the Head of Corporate Governance and a Democratic Services Officer |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OPEN ITEMS | ||||
| 22 |
Appointment of Chairman In the absence of the Independent Chairman, the committee was asked to appoint a chairman for the meeting. (Independent Member Mr J Holt took the chair) |
Agreed | ||
| 23 |
Welcome and Introductions The Independent Chairman welcomed members, officers and members of the public to the meeting and explained the procedures to them. He also reported that he had agreed to accept consideration of an urgent item which would be dealt with after the exclusion of press and public. |
Noted | ||
| 24 |
Apologies for Absence Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Independent Chairman Russell Atkinson, Independent Member Steve Ellison, Parish Councillor Mrs Hoghton and Councillor Mrs M Robinson. |
Noted | ||
| 25 |
Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest other than the Independent Chairman (Mr J Holt) informed the meeting that he had previously worked in the same office as Mr Stone (Investigating Officer) approximately 20 years ago. |
Noted | ||
| 26 |
Hearing Into A Complaint About Councillor Marsh Committee Report attached Appendix 1 attached Appendix 2 attached Appendix 3 attached Appendix 2 Edited Interview Cllr Marsh (40K/bytes) attached The allegation before the committee was that Councillor Marsh (a member of South Ribble Borough Council) had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct for Elected Members. At the outset it was explained that the letter of complaint against Councillor Marsh had effectively contained two separate complaints, however, only one of which would be considered by the committee at this hearing. The committee considered a report by John Stone (Investigating Officer), who had been appointed by the council?s Monitoring Officer to carry out an investigation into the alleged breach of the code of conduct, along with all other relevant information and conducted a hearing into the allegations. The committee also considered written representations that had been submitted by Councillor Marsh. The complainant had alleged that Councillor Marsh had (whilst delivering copies of the council?s ?Forward? magazine in the Bamber Bridge West Area) included with the delivery of the newspaper a political leaflet on behalf of the Conservative Party. It was understood that Councillor Marsh was to be paid by the council for delivering the Forward newspaper. The complainant stated:-?That this leaflet was delivered with Forward leaves this council open to suggestions that the ruling Tory Council is now paying Tory Councillors to deliver Tory leaflets at rate payers? expense. The accusation was further endorsed by the fact that it was (a) delivered to a Labour Councillor?s house and (b) the fact that said address was in the middle of the largest estate in Bamber Bridge suggested that well over 200 copies had been despatched.? The Investigation Officer had found that:- 1. Councillor Marsh was in breach of paragraph 5 of the Code of Conduct in that he brought both his office and authority into disrepute by delivering Forward and a Conservative leaflet together; and 2. Councillor Marsh was in breach of paragraph 6(b) of the Code of Conduct in that delivering a political leaflet whilst being paid by the Council constitutes a breach of the Code. Mr Stone presented his investigation report but no witnesses were called to give evidence as Councillor Marsh had already acknowledged that he had been at fault. It was acknowledged that once Councillor Marsh had been contacted by the council?s Democratic Services he had accepted the mistake he had made and had given an undertaking not to repeat his actions. Councillor Marsh attended the hearing and re-affirmed he had been in the wrong albeit that the number of political leaflets actually delivered had been about 70-80 and he was also happy to comply with whatever sanction(s) the committee felt appropriate. The committee considered evidence relating to the articles in question and the circumstances in which they were made. The committee considered that Councillor Marsh was acting in his official capacity (as defined by paragraph 2.1 of the Code of Conduct) as a councillor when he delivered the newspaper and leaflets. When reaching its conclusion on all aspects of this case the committee gave careful consideration to all representations ? whether written or oral ? made by Councillor Marsh, the written report, and representations of Mr Stone, and the evidence of Councillor Watts. IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY FOUND: 1. that on the evidence before the committee, and on the balance of probabilities, Councillor Marsh was in breach of Paragraph 5 of the Code of Conduct for Elected Members in that had he brought his office and authority into disrepute by delivering Forward and a Conservative leaflet together; and 2. that on the evidence before the committee, and on the balance of probabilities, Councillor Marsh was in breach of Paragraph 6 (b) of the Code of Conduct in that delivering a political leaflet whilst being paid by the Council constituted a clear breach of the Code; The committee then considered the representations that were made by Mr Stone and Councillor Marsh as to sanction. IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED: That a sanction should be imposed as follows:- 1. that it was just and proportionate to censure Councillor Marsh for failing to comply with Paragraphs 5 and 6(b) of the Code of Conduct; and 2. that it was just and proportionate to require Councillor Marsh to undergo refresher training on the Code of Conduct and on the responsibilities of a Councillor and, this training to be arranged by the Council?s Monitoring Officer, should take place within three months of the date of the decision notice. |
Agreed | ||
| 27 |
Exclusion of Press and Public RESOLVED: that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following two items of business as it involved the discussion of information which were respectively defined as exempt from publication under Paragraph 7C of section 58(1)(C) of the Local Government Act 2000 and Paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. (At this point Councillor Yates attended the meeting) |
Agreed | ||
| EXEMPT ITEMS | ||||
| 28 |
Hearing Into A Complaint About Councillor Watts Committee Report attached Appendix 1 attached Appendix 2 attached Appendix 3 attached Appendix 3 Prepared Statement (Watts) (102K/bytes) attached Appendix 3 Interview (Watts) (105K/bytes) attached The allegation before the committee was that Councillor Watts (a member of South Ribble Borough Council) had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct for Elected Members. The committee considered a report by John Stone (Investigating Officer), who had been appointed by the council?s Monitoring Officer to carry out an investigation into the alleged breach of the code of conduct, along with all other relevant information and conducted a hearing into the allegations. The committee also considered written representations that had been submitted by Councillor Watts. The complainant after reading two articles in a local newspaper had alleged that Councillor Watts had disclosed exempt information as defined under Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. The complainant was also concerned with some comments that Councillor Watts had made in the press about some decisions of Planning Committee that he disagreed with. Councillor Watts? membership of the same Committee compounded the matter. If substantiated the complainant felt there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct in terms of Paragraphs 3(a) and 4. The Investigation Officer had found that:- 1. Councillor Watts was in breach of paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct, as he was or should have been aware that any reference to Compulsory Purchase Order powers, negotiations and valuations were confidential; 2. Councillor Watts was not in breach of paragraph 3 of the Code of Conduct, relating to his comments made about some decisions of the Planning Committee that he disagreed with; and 3. Councillor Watts was not in breach of paragraph 5 of the Code of Conduct, in that he had brought both his office and authority into disrepute. Mr Stone presented his investigation report but no witnesses were called to give evidence as Councillor Watts had already indicated he accepted the report and did not intend to contest any of its contents. The committee was informed that Councillor Watts had indicated that he did not propose to attend the hearing. The committee considered this and under the circumstances decided to proceed with the hearing. The complainant, Councillor Clark was present in the audience. The committee considered evidence relating to the articles in question and the circumstances in which they were made. The committee considered that Councillor Watts was acting in his official capacity (as defined by paragraph 2.1 of the Code of Conduct) as a councillor when he disclosed this information and made the comments about those decisions of Planning Committee that he disagreed with. When reaching its conclusion on all aspects of this case the committee gave careful consideration to all representations ? whether written or oral ? made by Councillor Watts, the written report, and representations of Mr Stone, and the evidence of Councillor Clark. IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY FOUND: 1. that on the evidence before the committee, and on the balance of probabilities, Councillor Watts was in breach of Paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct for Elected Members in respect of the disclosure of information concerning compulsory purchase order powers; and 2. that on the evidence before the committee, and on the balance of probabilities, Councillor Watts was not in breach of paragraphs 3.1 and 5 of the Code of Conduct for Elected Members in respect of those comments he made regarding the decisions of the council?s Planning Committee that he had disagreed with. The committee then considered the representations that were made by Mr Stone as to sanction. IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED: That a sanction should be imposed as follows:- 1. that it was just and proportionate to suspend Councillor Watts from his duties as a councillor for a period of three months from the 8 October 2009 for failing to comply with paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct; and 2. that it was just and proportionate to require Councillor Watts to undergo appropriate training on the current Code of Conduct, agreed with the Monitoring Officer and this to include specific training on the issue of disclosure of confidential material. (At this point Councillor Yates left the meeting) |
Agreed | ||
| 29 |
Urgent Item The chairman had authorised the consideration of the following item of business as one of urgency in accordance with Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 in order to enable the council to submit its response to the Adjudication Panel for England by 9 October 2009. |
Agreed | ||
| 30 |
Standards Committee?s Draft Response to the Adjudication Panel for England ? Appeal by Councillor Sharratt Urgent Item - Draft Response attached Further to the hearing of the Standards Committee held on 28 August 2009 (min. no.14 refers), Councillor Sharratt had applied for and been granted the right to appeal to the Adjudication Panel for England (APE) against the council?s decision. As a result the APE required the council?s formal written response to the appeal by 9 October 2009. The committee received and discussed the draft of the council?s proposed response to be sent to the APE. RESOLVED: That the finalising of the council?s response to the Adjudication Panel for England (APE) be delegated to the Monitoring Officer in consultation with chairman of this meeting. |
Agreed | ||