Standards Committee - Tuesday 18 March 2008

Present at the meeting:

Elected Members

Councillor Mrs S Dewhurst
Councillor B J Fagan
Councillor J A O’Neill
Councillor Mrs J Prescott
Councillor F B Walker

Independent Members

Mr G Wood (Chairman)
Mr R Kidd
Mrs P A Wheal

Parish Council Members

Councillor Mrs M A Thomson (Haigh)

55 Apologies for absence: Councillors P Thompson, R T Splaine and Mrs R Winkworth and Councillor M J Crosby (Shevington Parish Council), Mr D A Lea and Mr P G Pennington.

56 Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 29 January 2008 were approved as a correct record.

57 Exclusion of the public - Section 100a Local Government Act 1972: Resolved: The public is excluded from the meeting when the Committee discusses the following item for the reason set out below:-

Agenda item no	Title of report	Minute no.	Description of exempt information by reference to the paragraph number in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972
E1	Standard Board decisions	63	1 (Information about any named person). The public interest in making the exception is that the Standards Board itself does not publish the decision as they have not been the subject of a full investigation

Agenda item no

Title of report

Minute no.

Description of exempt information by reference to the paragraph number in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

Standard Board decisions

1 (Information about any named person).

The public interest in making the exception is that the Standards Board itself does not publish the decision as they have not been the subject of a full investigation

58 Adjudication panel for England/ethical standards officers’ decisions: There were none.

59 Parish issues: There were none.

60 Training pursuant to the Direction of the Standards Board: The Deputy Director of Legal and Property Services advised the Committee of comments that had been received from a Member following the decision of the Committee authorising training and mediation. In particular the independence of one of the procured mediators had been raised as a concern. In view of this one Member had indicated that they would not participate in mediation involving that person Members noted these comments but confirmed that they still wished to pursue training and would consider how mediation should be pursued as part of the initial training processes.

The Committee was advised that the next step for the Council was to establish cross party member groups to receive training and discuss relevant issues. The Deputy Director of Legal and Property Services confirmed that within the training provision the issue of mediation would be discussed.

Resolved: The Committee endorse the recommendation to pursue Member training with the opportunity to discuss the implementation of mediation at an early stage of that training.

61 Revised ethical framework – local assessments: The Deputy Director of Legal and Property Services advised the Committee that the proposed date of 1 April 2008, whereby the Standards Board devolved the power of filtering of local assessments to Standards Committee’s had now been delayed.

The Committee was advised that the Standards Board had not yet issued guidance on how Standards Committee’s were to deal with the filtering of local assessments. The Deputy Director of Legal and Property Services informed the Committee that the Standards Board had issued some training examples of filtering of complaints for Standards Committee’s to consider.

The Committee raised concerns about the perceived role Independent Members would be required to undertake under the forthcoming local arrangements.

Resolved: The Committee requests the Deputy Director of Legal and Property Services, in conjunction with the Chairman, to establish a suitable date for the Committee to undertake the training examples that had been provided by the Standards Board.

62 Discussion period for Members to raise issues: The Committee discussed the issue of harassment in the form of persistent complaints made against Members by the same person or group of people.

The Committee was advised that they did not have any authority to prevent Members of the public from submitting complaints against Members but how such problems could be addressed was considered.

Resolved: The Committee notes the concerns of Members.

63 Standards Board decisions – (a) Case SBE21026.08: The Committee considered the findings of the Referrals Unit for the Standards Board for England in the above-mentioned case. This related to an allegation that a Member:-

had written a letter that was published in the Wigan Evening Post in support of an anonymous letter that was published on an earlier date;
that in writing the letter, the Member had admitted that he had voted when his discretion was fettered at a planning committee meeting and that he was influenced by considerations other than planning considerations;
that the Member’s letter indicated that he had used another named member’s vote at the planning committee meeting to his political advantage; and
the Member had used a planning issue to start his election campaign.

In relation to the allegation that the Member had written a letter which had fettered his discretion, it was considered that Members were entitled to respond to letters in the press and put forward their own views and explain their position on items of interest which appeared to be the case in this situation. There was no information to support the view that the Member had disclosed a potential breach of the Code of Conduct.

Resolved: The Committee accepts the report.

(b) Case SBE20127.08: The Committee considered the findings of the Referrals Unit for the Standards Board for England in the above-mentioned case. This related to an allegation that a Member had made statements and used a photograph of council and police officers in a leaflet during the May 2007 election period without the officers’ permission. The issue was reported to the district auditor of the Council and the Police. The complainant had received replies from the Council’s Director of Legal Services and the local Chief Inspector of the Police.

The complainant contended that all officers of the authority were supposed to be in purdah during the election period and all police officers were supposed to be impartial.

The complainant further alleged that in an article ‘Making Wigan Safer’ the Member had given the impression that several police initiatives were as a direct result of his work which was denied by the Chief Inspector. The complainant was of the view that the Member had lied and used his position to gain an unfair electoral advantage.

The Standards Board for England’s policy on dubious or arguable statements in political leaflets was that they were unlikely to investigate such issues unless they entered the realm of extreme and deliberately offensive remarks about other people. Based on the information provided, the Standards Board did not consider that this was the case here.

The Standards Board determined that the leaflet may have created a political challenge to one party, however, it was considered that that party could have counteracted the statements if necessary, at the time, by their own campaigning. In any event, this was not an issue for the Standards Board. The electorate was considered to be generally adept at weighing the claims and counter-claims of the political parties, and it was not the role of the Standards Board to intervene in that aspect of the democratic process.

The Standards Board noted that reference was made to the Members position as a member in the leaflet. The Standards Board considered that election leaflets were not generally produced in a Member’s official capacity and were therefore outside the Standards Board’s scope.

The Standards Board also noted that the reply from the Council’s Director of Legal Services did not indicate that the Member was directly responsible for the photograph published in the election leaflet. In the circumstances, there was no information to suggest that the Member had potentially failed to comply with the Code of Conduct. With regard to the Chief Inspector’s reply, it was noted that he had confirmed that the photograph was a private one and taken before the election, but in any event the police did not have any copyright control. It was also noted that the Chief Inspector had confirmed that the events portrayed in conjunction with the photograph were factually correct. In the circumstances, the Standards Board did not consider that the alleged conduct disclosed a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.

Finally, the Standards Board noted that any concerns the complainant may have had with the content of the election leaflet should have been taken up with the Police in the first instance. It appeared that the complainant had already pursued this line of approach.

Resolved: The Committee accepts the report.

(c) SBE21426.08: The Committee considered the findings of the Referrals Unit for the Standards Board for England in the above-mentioned case. This related to an allegation that a Member had agreed to assist the complainant in organising a campaign to install traffic calming measures and acquire a plot of land for a children’s community allotment in return for the complainants help in assisting the Member with his daughter’s election campaign.

The complainant alleged that a few weeks after speaking to the Member, the Member advised the complainant that he was unable to assist with the campaign in installing traffic calming measures as another Councillor had previously been involved in the issue. The complainant also alleged that the Member did not speak about the land that he had previously said he would help the complainant to secure for the children’s allotment. The complainant reported that a housing organisation had applied for planning permission for the land that had been identified.

The complainant further alleged that the Member knew there was little he could have done in relation to the traffic calming measures and it was highly likely that he was aware that the land had been put on the market when he had offered inducements for his assistance. The complainant alleged that the Member, in effect, had blackmailed them into assisting in the election campaign for his daughter.

The Standards Board for England considered that the Members alleged behaviour in asking the complainant to assist with his daughter’s election campaign in return for his help as a Councillor may have disclosed a potential breach of the Code of Conduct. However, due to the passage of time that had elapsed between the alleged incident and the complaint to the Standards Board, combined with the apparent lack of independent witnesses to support the complainant’s claims, the Standards Board would have had difficulty in investigating the complaint and proving the alleged conduct. For this reason, the Standards Board considered that it would not be appropriate to refer the complaint for investigation.

The Standards Board for England had decided that the allegation should not be referred to an ethical standards officer for investigation. Having taken account of the available information, the Standards Board for England did not believe that the alleged conduct was serious enough to justify an investigation. The Standards Board for England made no finding of fact at this stage and no judgement had been made about whether the alleged events actually occurred in the way the complainant said in the absence of any investigation.

Resolved: The Committee accepts the report, but requested the Deputy Director of Legal and Property Services to raise some questions of principle with the Standards Board.

(Councillor B J Fagan declared a prejudicial interest in this item because of his connection with the issue and left the meeting prior to consideration of this item).

64 Vote of thanks: Agreed: The best thanks of this Committee are extended to the Chairman, and the officers for the excellent services rendered by them during the past Municipal Year.

How do you rate the information on this page?