Skip to content

Agenda item

Covering and Investigation Report of the Deputy County Solicitor and Monitoring Officer, attached.

 

Also attached is a copy of the original complaint and relevant appendices.

Minutes:

The Committee considered the Report of the Deputy County Solicitor and Monitoring Officer relating to a complaint received from Mr Hayward (the Complainant) relating to an alleged breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Stuart Hughes (the Subject Member).

 

The covering and investigation Report of the Deputy County Solicitor and Monitoring Officer gave the background on actions to date including receipt of the complaint, consultation with the Independent Person, the views of the Assessment Sub Committee and the decision of the Assessment Sub Committee that a Report be brought forward to the next meeting of the Standards Committee in relation to clarification on sponsorship and a social media tweet. The Assessment Sub Committee had determined that no further action should be taken in relation to a third social media tweet.

 

The Deputy County Solicitor and Monitoring Officer’s Report highlighted the matters had been investigated but stressed the importance of the Committee thoroughly considering the issues before reaching its own conclusion as to whether or not there had been a breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

 

The Report of the County Solicitor and Monitoring Officer also encompassed the views of the Independent Person following his consideration of the investigation Report who concurred with both the content and recommendation.

 

The County Solicitor and Monitoring Officer reminded the Committee of their role and remit which was to determine whether or not it considered the Code of Conduct had been breached. If the Committee found there was no breach then there would be no further action, but if the Committee felt there had been a breach then it needed to determine what sanctions, if any, should be applied to the Subject Member.

 

The sanctions available to the Committee were to require the Subject Member to issue a formal, public apology, recommend that the Committee issue some form of public censure of the Subject Member, recommend to the appropriate Group Leader that the Subject Member be removed from any or all Committee / Sub Committees and outside bodies, exclude or restrict the Subject Member’s access to some or all County Council premises, instruct the Monitoring Officer to arrange training, remove the Subject Member from all outside bodies appointed to or nominated to by the Council; and / or withdraw facilities (e.g. computer access).

 

The decisions of the Committee on each of the alleged breaches and application of allowable sanction is detailed below.

 

The findings of the Report were that, in relation to the retweeted message there had been no failure under paragraph 1.3(h), 5(b) or 5(c), but the Committee needed to consider whether there had been a potential failure under paragraph 1.3(i) and 4(a) (promote and support high standards of conduct and treat others with respect and courtesy). In relation to the second post, the investigation report found there had been no breach of 1.3(a), 1.3(b), 1.3(f), 5(a), 5(e) or 5(h).

 

The Committee expressed their view that the sponsorship issue had now been thoroughly investigated and they agreed with the investigating officers report that there had been no breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

However, in relation to the reported retweet, it was MOVED by Councillor Bloxham, SECONDED by Councillor Slade and RESOLVED that there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct under paragraph 1.3(h) (to promote and support high standards of conduct when serving in the public post) and paragraph 4(a) (to treat others with courtesy and respect) and subsequently the Committee asks the Monitoring Officer to provide guidance to the Subject Member relating to the use of social media and retweeting messages which could cause offence.

 

(In line with the Procedure agreed under Standards Minute *18, Mrs Mayes and Mr Hodgins showed their support for the approved resolution. In line with that procedure, their views are recorded in the minutes).

Supporting documents:


Top