Present at the meeting:
- Councillor Mrs J Prescott
- Councillor P Thompson
- Councillor F B Walker
- Mr R Kidd
- Mr P G Pennington
4 Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 5 August 2008 were approved as a correct record.
5 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.
| Agenda item No |
Title of report |
Minute No |
Reason (under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972) |
| E1 |
Assessment of cases |
6 |
1 (Information about any named person) |
6 Assessment of cases – (a) Z38/3: The Sub-Committee re-convened to considered a report in relation to the above mentioned case following receipt of further evidence that had been requested (minute 3 refers). 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.
Having considered the evidence submitted, the Sub-Committee did not consider that the Members alleged behaviour, may have disclosed a potential breach of the Code of Conduct and 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.
(b) Case Z38/2: The Sub-Committee re-convened to considered a report in relation to the above mentioned case following receipt of further evidence that had been requested (minute 3 refers). 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.
Having considered the evidence submitted, the Sub-Committee did not consider that the Members alleged behaviour, may have disclosed a potential breach of the Code of Conduct and 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.
(c) Z38/5: The Sub-Committee considered a report in relation to the above mentioned case. This related to an allegation that a Member had disclosed confidential information about the complainant to neighbours in relation to an objection to a Gating Order. The complainant stated that she now felt vulnerable to pressure from those neighbours.
The Sub-Committee considered that the Members alleged behaviour, may have disclosed a potential breach of the Code of Conduct and instructed the Monitoring Officer to investigate the alleged conduct at a local level.
Resolved: The Sub-Committee, having taken account of the available information, believe that a potential breach of the Code of Conduct was disclosed and authorises the Monitoring Officer to undertake a local investigation.
