Agenda item

Report No: JST/JT/18/005

The Monitoring Officer advised the Joint Committee that the Complainant had stated that they would not be attending the meeting, the Officer also outlined the options available to the Chairman with regard to the process in respect of the consideration and deliberation of the report.

Members were advised that the Complainant had been made the subject of a counter complaint, however, the Joint Committee were not being asked to consider this matter and should not give any regard to it in their deliberations.

Furthermore, the Monitoring Officer expressed her concern that ‘tit for tat’ complaints were increasing, in light of which the intention was to include specific guidance on dealing with these type of complaints as part of the review of standards procedures for the West Suffolk Council.

Lastly, the Joint Committee were advised of two corrections to the report before them:

Paragraph 1.3 – should have read “after” [the meeting] and not ‘at’; and

Paragraph 2.1 – the word ‘emails’ should be replaced with “tweets”.

The Councillor who was the subject of the complaint was then invited to re-join the meeting and was permitted to address Members directly in response to the complaint. 

Considerable debate then ensued with the Joint Committee posing a number of questions to the Councillor in attendance.

Whilst the complaint related to a topic discussed within a formal meeting and the incident took place within the venue of said meeting, the Joint Committee had some reservations that the Councillor in question was still acting ‘in capacity’ as an elected Member as the formal meeting had closed. 

Accordingly, Members concluded that the Councillor who was the subject of the complaint was not bound by the Code of Conduct at the time of the incident, and had therefore not breached the Code.  However, given the subject had already expressed willingness to do so, they did consider that it would be helpful for the Councillor to apologise to the Complainant, with the Monitoring Officer acting as conduit.

The Joint Committee also requested that, in light of the Monitoring Officer’s comments earlier in the meeting with regard to the volume of complaints and the 2019 local elections, an email be sent to all West Suffolk Councillors on behalf of the Joint Committee reminding them of the Code of Conduct and the need to comply when acting in their official capacity.

With the vote being unanimous, it was

RESOLVED:

That:-

1.   The West Suffolk Joint Standards Committee resolved that the Councillor who was the subject of the complaint was not acting in the capacity of an Elected Member at the time of the incident and was, therefore, not in breach of the Code of Conduct;

2.   An apology be issued to the Complainant from the Councillor with the Monitoring Officer acting as conduit;

3.   Specific guidance on dealing with ‘tit for tat’ complaints be included as part of the review of standards procedures for the West Suffolk Council; and

4.   An email be sent on behalf of the Joint Committee to all West Suffolk Councillors reminding them of the Code of Conduct and the need to comply when acting in their official capacity.