Standards Assessment Sub Committee - Tuesday 5 August 2008

Present at the meeting:

Elected Members

• Councillor Mrs J Prescott
• Councillor P Thompson
• Councillor F B Walker

Independent Members

• Mr R Kidd
• Mr P G Pennington

1 Appointment of Chairman: Resolved: Mr R Kidd was appointed Chairman of the meeting for minutes 3(a) and 3(b). Mr P G Pennington was appointed Chairman of the meeting for minutes 3(c) and 3(d).

2 Exclusion of the public – Section 100a Local Government Act 1972: Resolved: The public is excluded from the meeting when the Sub Committee discusses the following items for the reasons set out below:

3 Assessment of cases – (a) Case Z38/1: The Sub-Committee considered a report in relation to the above mentioned case. This related to an allegation that a Member had published a filmed statement on the internet claiming that the complainant’s son had driven a car with his own name on a private registration plate during the run up to the May 2008 local elections. The complainant stated that the car belonged to her, not her son, and she now felt vulnerable in using her car in case of some form of reprisal.

It was further alleged that the Members actions went beyond ordinary canvassing and were an abuse of his position as a Councillor.

The Sub-Committee considered that the Members alleged behaviour in publishing a filmed statement on the internet, may have disclosed a potential breach of the Code of Conduct. However, due to insufficient information and the lack of evidence provided, the Sub-Committee considered that it would have been difficult to investigate the complaint and prove the alleged conduct. For this reason, the Sub-Committee considered that it would not be appropriate to refer the complaint for investigation.

Resolved: The Sub-Committee, having taken account of the available information, did not believe that a potential breach of the Code of Conduct was disclosed, and dismissed the complaint due to insufficient information and the lack of evidence provided.

(b) Case Z38/2: The Sub-Committee considered a report in relation to the above mentioned case. This related to an allegation that a Member had published a filmed statement on the internet in the run up to the May 2008 local elections, which was hostile to a candidate in a Salford Council constituency and supportive of his brother. The complainant alleged that in the video, the Member accused the complainant of being a child bully. It was further alleged that the Member, in response to comments made by the complainant on the internet site, posted leaflets at the complainants address only and acted in an insulting manner towards the complainant.

It was also alleged that in email correspondence, the Member had threatened to reveal allegations of past abuse to the Police. Subsequently, the complainant had referred the issue to the Police.

The Sub-Committee considered that the Members alleged behaviour, may have disclosed a potential breach of the Code of Conduct. However, due to insufficient information and the lack of evidence provided, the Sub-Committee considered that it would have been difficult to investigate the complaint and prove the alleged conduct. For this reason, the Sub-Committee considered that it would not be appropriate to refer the complaint for investigation.

Resolved: The Sub-Committee requests that the evidence referred to by the complainant is submitted to the Sub-Committee for consideration, prior to any decision being taken.

(c) Z38/3: The Sub-Committee considered a report in relation to the above mentioned case. This related to an allegation that a Member had published two filmed statements on the internet in the run up to the May 2008 local elections, criticising the complainant and his views. The complainant alleged that the videos were filmed close to his home and suggested that he was a drug abuser and could have mental health issues. The complainant considered that the commentary to the video was conducted in an intimidatory fashion which frightened his wife. The complainant stated that the complaint was support by neighbours.

The Sub-Committee considered that the Members alleged behaviour, may have disclosed a potential breach of the Code of Conduct. However, due to insufficient information and the lack of evidence provided, the Sub-Committee considered that it would have been difficult to investigate the complaint and prove the alleged conduct. For this reason, the Sub-Committee considered that it would not be appropriate to refer the complaint for investigation.

Resolved: The Sub-Committee requests that the evidence referred to by the complainant is submitted to the Sub-Committee for consideration, prior to any decision being taken.

(d) Z38/4: The Sub-Committee considered a report in relation to the above mentioned case. This related to an allegation that a Chairman of the Standards Committee at Wigan Council had written a letter to the Mayor, Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive, which in the complainants view, was critical of the complainants conduct, character and integrity, and an incitement to refer the complainant, who was then an elected member of the Council, to the Standards Board.

The complainant also alleged that the Chairman had used his position inappropriately in an attempt to confer a disadvantage on the complainant and that he had brought his office into disrepute.

The Sub-Committee noted that whilst the complainant had taken exception to the Chairman’s conduct, it was not considered that such behaviour necessarily disclosed a potential breach of the code of conduct. The Sub-Committee recognised that Chairman of the Standards Committee was entitled to express his views.

In the circumstances outlined, the Sub-Committee did not consider that the alleged conduct demonstrated that the Chairman had used his position to confer a disadvantage on the complainant. Furthermore, it was not considered that the Member’s alleged conduct had the potential to bring his office and authority into disrepute.

Resolved: The Sub-Committee, having taken account of the available information, did not believe that a potential breach of the Code of Conduct was disclosed and dismissed the complaint.

Chairman