No Breach of the Code

ASSESSMENT DECISION NOTICE

NO BREACH OF THE CODE

Complaint

On 12 September 2014 the Monitoring Officer considered a complaint from Mr Eric Randle concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor Michael Hopkins of St Enoder Parish Council. A general summary of the complaint is set out below:

The Complainant has alleged that the Subject Member failed to declare an interest in planning application, PA 14/00652 (the ‘Application’) when it was discussed by the Parish Council.

Potential breaches of the Code of Conduct raised by the Complainant are:

·  the Subject Member has conducted himself in a manner that is contrary to the Council’s duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct;

·  the Subject Member has compromised or has attempted to compromise the impartiality of anyone who works for or on behalf of the authority; and

·  the Subject Member has participated in the discussions, participated in the vote, or further vote and failing to remove himself from the meeting while the matter in which he had has a disclosable pecuniary or non registerable interest was determined.

Decision

No breach of the Code of Conduct has been demonstrated

Reasons for the Decision

Sufficient information has been obtained to enable a final determination to be made on this matter at assessment and it is considered that there is neither a need to refer this matter for investigation nor any public interest in doing so.

In considering this matter I have had regard to:

·  the complaint, as submitted by the Complainant;

·  the response to the complaint, as submitted by the Subject Member;

·  the views of the Clerk to the Council; and

·  the views of the Independent Person assigned to this matter.

The Complainant has set out that he considers the Subject Member has an interest in the Application and that the Subject Member should have declared this interest when the Application was discussed by the Parish Council.

An interest can arise under the Code if it is something which is either a disclosable pecuniary interest as set out at paragraph 5A, or a non registerable interest, as set out in paragraph 5B of the Code.

The Complainant considers the way in which the Subject Member’s interest in the Application has arisen is; that there is a long running dispute between himself and the Subject Member, and that the Complainant employed someone with whom the Subject Member has close association.

With regards to the long running dispute.

No details as to the nature of the dispute are given by the Complainant. However, the Subject Member has advised that he believes the Complainant may view him as responsible for providing information in an enforcement matter, which the Subject Member has advised was not the case.

Whilst a close association can arise as the result of a dispute as well as a friendship, in the absence of anything further that would suggest the dispute, referred to by the Complainant, has the potential to influence the Subject Member’s judgement; this part of the complainant is not considered further.

The Complainant has also said that until May 2014 he employed a person with whom the Subject Member has a close association and because of this the Subject Member should have declared an interest in the Application.

In responding to this part of the complaint; the Subject Member has set out that the relationship which the Complainant suggests has created the close association, is not accurate; although the Subject Member does describe the person, named by the Complainant, as a friend.

For an interest to arise there has to be an association that is close enough to be one that a reasonable person with knowledge of all the relevant facts would consider so significant that it is likely to prejudice the Subject Member’s judgement of the public interest

In reviewing the comments sent by the Subject Member and the Complainant to this complaint I do not believe that an interest arises. The person with whom the Subject Member is alleged to have a close association left the employ of the Complainant at the start of May 2014, and the Application was first considered by the Council in June. Therefore the Application would have no effect on the person’s employment and the interest which arises, if any, is not sufficiently significant to prejudice the Subject Member’s judgement of the public interest.

As a result of the above I do not consider that the Subject Member has breached the Code of Conduct for St Ender Parish Council.

What happens now?

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

Right of review

At the written request of the complainant, the Monitoring Officer can review and is able to change a decision not to refer an allegation for investigation or other action. To ensure impartiality in the conduct of the review different officers to those involved in the original decision will undertake the review.

We must receive a written request from the complainant to review this decision within 15 working days from the date of this notice, explaining in detail on what grounds the decision should be reviewed.

If we receive a request for a review, we will write to all the parties mentioned above, notifying them of the request to review the decision.

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.

Simon Mansell, Principal Legal Officer, Corporate Governance

On behalf of the Monitoring Officer

Date: 17 September 2014