Decision Notice

Reference
/ SFE-000240
Subject member / Councillor Reggie Jones
Member’s authority / Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council
Complainant / Mrs Julie Gill and Mr Simon Goacher
Standards committee authority / Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council
Allegation(s) made by the complainant

On [YY YYY YYYY]7April 2011 the Standards Initial Assessment Sub-Committee of West Cheshire and Chester Borough CouncilStandards Committee decided to referthe above allegation to Standards for England. This was received by Standards for England on 20 May 2011.

It is alleged that Councillor Jones made defamatory statements in respect of the Council’s Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer in a letter to the press published on 10 March 2011 and in a Notice of Motion to the Council on 17 March 2011. The allegations aresummarised in the Council’s decision notice.

Decision of the Standards Board

When a standards committee refers an allegation to Standards for England (SfE), SfEmust make one of three decisions:

  • refer the caseto one of its ethical standards officers;
  • refer the allegation back to the standards committee of the relevant authority; or
  • decide that no action needs to be taken in respect of the allegation.

Under section 58(2) of the Local Government Act 2000, as amended, SfEhas decided that no action needs to be taken in respect of the allegation.

Reasons for decision

Standards for England accepts the Standards Initial Assessment Sub-Committee’s reason for referring this to Standards for England, that the status of the complainants would make it difficult for the complaint to be considered by the local standards committee,

While that the auditor’s report is by no means as critical as Councillor Jones suggests, at the same time it is not as supportive of the two councils as the complainants suggest. Although the auditor says that she was satisfied,in general, by the decision-making process adopted by the councils and that the sale did represent value for money for council tax payers, she also made a number of adverse comments. For instance she was concerned that interim advice given to members was provided verbally and not documented, that Cheshire West did not make their Counsel aware of a second valuation of the building and that both councils could have done more to involve local people in the decision to sell the building.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights gives protection to the right of freedom of expression, a right which the courts have strongly upheld in cases involving the expression of political opinion. Councillor Jones’ comments to the press and his motion to the Council are protected by Article10. In any event, the targets of hiscriticisms include not only officers of the Council but also its political leadership. I do not think that it is possible to construe his letter or the motion as being personally disrespectful to officers even if, by implication, it challenges some aspects of their performance, as indeed, does the auditor’s report.

Additional Help

Please let me know if you need letters or other communication provided in a different format.

Signed

[REGULATION PROGRAMME MANAGER NAME]Steve Bannister

Regulation Programme Manager Date