This report set out the detail and submitted
evidence in relation to two complaints received in respect of an
Elected Member.
The complaints were reviewed jointly (as they
concerned the same matter) in accordance with the procedure agreed
by the Standards Committee at their meeting in July 2019.
The Independent Person was of the view that
the Councillor had breached the Code of Conduct and recommended
that they provide a public apology at a meeting of the Authority in
question.
However, the Councillor who was the subject of
the complaints had rejected the Independent Person’s
recommendation on the basis that they had already issued a written
apology.
Therefore, in accordance with the complaints
handling procedure, the matter had now been referred to the
Standards Committee in order for them to review.
Considerable discussion took place by the
Committee with Members being of the view that the previously issued
written apology was sufficient. Members
felt that the apology had been issued promptly and there was no
wider adverse reaction from the public which may have necessitated
a public apology.
There was also some debate as to whether the
Committee believed that the Councillor had breached the Code of
Conduct.
Both the Monitoring Officer and Deputy
Monitoring Officer provided further explanation and advice to the
meeting; particularly in relation to the role of the Independent
Person and the complaints handling procedure. It was agreed that the wording of the procedure
would be looked at in order to provide clarity on some
elements.
Councillor Jim Meikle raised a general
question in relation to the support offered to Elected Members in
respect of their wellbeing given the challenges they can
face. The Monitoring Officer confirmed
that the Council would offer support to any Member if there was
concerns regarding their wellbeing.
Councillor Max Clarke proposed an amendment to
the recommendation set out in Report No STC/WS/19/003, to reflect
that the Committee had considered the matter and was of the view
that the email apology already made by the Councillor was
sufficient and that no further action was necessary. This was duly seconded by Councillor Roger
Dicker.
Upon being put to the vote and with the vote
being unanimous, it was
RESOLVED:
That the Committee considered the matter and
was of the view that the email apology already made by the
Councillor was sufficient and that no further action was
necessary.