REVIEW DECISION NOTICE

NO BREACH OF THE CODE

Reference: / CCN030/13
Complainant: / Mr Simon Townly
Subject Member: / Councillor Edwina Hannaford, Looe Town Council
Person conducting
the Review: / Matt Stokes, Corporate Governance, Property and Commercial Group Manager
Date of Review: / 27 September 2013

Complaint

On 27 September 2013 the Monitoring Officer considered a request to review the complaint from Mr Simon Townly concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor Hannaford of Looe Town Council. A general summary of the complaint is set out below:

That the subject member has, through her behaviour towards the complainant and by way of comments attributed to the subject member at a meeting of the Looe Town Council on 26 June 2013:

·  failed to treat the complainant with respect

·  unlawfully discriminated against the complainant

·  bullied the complainant

·  intimidated or attempted to intimidate the complainant

·  conducted herself in a manner which is contrary to the Council’s duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct

Decision

The information provided does not demonstrate a breach of the Code of Conduct

Reasons for the Decision

In reaching this decision I have had regard to the information provided in connection with the complaint, both from the complainant and the subject member, the views of the Independent Person and other relevant information available to me. Such information is sufficient to enable an informed decision to be made without the need for a formal investigation or the undertaking of further enquiries. I do not consider it necessary, in the public interest or otherwise, for an investigation to be undertaken.

I agree with the conclusions of Simon Mansell in his Assessment Decision relating to this complaint and so I need not cover in detail what is already set out in the Assessment Decision. However, it is appropriate that I make the following additional comments:

(i)  the subject member has questioned whether the complainant should have been shown the confidential minutes of the meeting of 26 June 2013. To the extent that those minutes relate to the complainant he has an entitlement to them under the data protection regime as being personal data relating to him. I do not consider that there is any exception to the duty to provide that information to him. However, if indeed it has happened, I do not consider it appropriate for anyone to have discussed with the complainant the detail of the debate that was undertaken in private session. These are procedural points outside of the Code of Conduct regime but I consider it important for all interested parties to be aware of my view;

(ii)  the complainant’s suggestion that the comments of the subject member amount to defamation is not a matter that can properly be addressed through the Code of Conduct complaint process. In the absence of an investigation under the Code of Conduct complaints process, it is not appropriate for that process to be used to ask the subject member to provide information to the complainant as requested by him;

(iii)  the substance of the complaint could be considered to be an employment dispute. The Code of Conduct complaints process can only be applied to the question of whether there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct and not to settle tensions in the employment relationship. That is a matter for the complainant to resolve direct with his employer, the Town Council;

(iv)  at assessment it was correctly identified that criticism of employees is acceptable provided it is undertaken in the correct manner. Without more, it seems to me that the subject member’s approach has been appropriate. Albeit not directly related to the Code of Conduct, it is also important to note that the Town Council and its members have a fiduciary duty to the council tax payers albeit, in the context of employee related matters, that has to be discharged having due regard to the employment relationship;

(v)  I consider the original assessment to be flawed but only insofar as it failed to properly dispense with the allegations as to bullying and intimidation, albeit having correctly identified that the complainant ought to have recourse to his employer’s procedures. It is necessary to determine the allegations in the context of the Code of Conduct alongside whatever process may be undertaken with the Town Council to address the employment relationship issues. Whilst it is considered normal for anyone against whom criticism is directed to find it unpalatable I am not persuaded by the information provided that the criticism of the complainant by the subject member has been made other than in an entirely appropriate manner, using the correct forum. Whether the criticism was justified is not a matter for me to comment on as that is a matter for the complainant’s employer; and

(vi)  given that the complainant has a route through which to address his treatment as an employee and that he has indicated that he has taken advice with a view to pursuing his concerns, I do not consider it appropriate or in the public interest to refer the complaint for investigation.

On the basis of the information provided the only decision that can logically and properly be made is that the subject member has not breached the Code of Conduct of Looe Town Council. However, if the complainant were to achieve an outcome to any formal action against his employer through which clear evidence was made provided of wrongdoing on the part of the subject member or any other member of the Town Council I suggest it would be appropriate for the complainant to consider submitting a further complaint following the conclusion of those proceedings.

What happens now?

This decision notice is sent to the complainant, the member against whom the allegation has been made and the Clerk to Looe Town Council.

Additional help

If you need additional support in relation to this or future contact with us, please let us know as soon as possible. If you have difficulty reading this notice we can make reasonable adjustments to assist you, in line with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 2000.

We can also help if English is not your first language.

pp Matthew Stokes

Corporate Governance, Property and Commercial Group Manager

On behalf of the Monitoring Officer

Date: 27 September 2013