ASSESSMENT DECISION NOTICE
NO BREACH OF THE CODE
Reference: / CCN028/13Complainant: / Mr Lloyd Paynter
Subject Member: / Councillor Chris Batters, Cornwall Council
Person conducting
the Assessment: / Simon Mansell – Principal Legal Officer, Corporate Governance
Date of Assessment: / 23 July 2013
Complaint
On 23 July 2013 the Monitoring Officer considered a complaint from Mr Lloyd Paynter concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor Batters of Cornwall Council. A general summary of the complaint is set out below:
The Complainant has alleged that due to a complaint made to his Inspector about him, and due to a statement made by Councillor Batters at the AGM of Cardinham Parish Council on 20 May 2013, Councillor Batters has called his professional ability into question and has failed to treat him with respect.
Decision
For the reasons set out below I find no breach of the Code of Conduct.
Reasons for the Decision
The Complainant has provided sufficient information as part of the complaint and the circumstances are such as to enable this complaint to be assessed and determined without seeking out further information or referring the complaint for investigation and the undertaking of interviews.
In assessing this complaint I have had regard to the following information;
· The complaint as made by the Complainant
· The response to the complaint made by Councillor Batters
· The views of the Independent Person
The Complaint has stated that;
· He has been advised by a third party that, at the AGM of Cardinham Parish Council, reference was made to him which so annoyed the third party that they drove to the next surgery held by Councillor Batters to complain about this.
· Following the AGM, which the Complainant did not attend, the Complainant was then advised by his Inspector that a complaint has been made against him by Councillor Batters.
· Further to this the Complainant has stated he has also been made aware by an unnamed third party that Councillor Batters made comments at a meeting of Lanivet Parish Council saying he considered the standard of policing in Bodmin Parishes to be sub standard.
The Complainant has stated that he considers he has suffered defamation of character due to the comments made by Councillor Batters and that Councillor Batters, by making reference to his skills and abilities in public, has failed to treat him with respect.
Councillor Batters has stated that;
· At the AGM of Cardinham Parish Council on 20 May 2013 both Parish Councillors and members of the public raised concerns regarding the Complainant. Councillor Batters stated that if all other attempts to rectify the situation had been exhausted he suggested arranging a meeting with the senior section officer at Bodmin. However, this was something the Parish Council would need to decide upon.
· On 22 May 2013, following the meeting of the Parish Cardinham Parish Council on 21 May 2012, which Councillor Batters did not attend; the Clerk to the Parish Council requested that Councillor Batters arrange the meeting at Bodmin to discuss their concerns. It was in arranging this meeting that a formal log was raised in Councillor Batters’ name as he was the person requesting the meeting.
· Having only attended one meeting of Lanivet Parish Council in mid May 2013 Councillor Batters denies making the statement concerning policing.
· Councillor Batters has also advised that the third party who reported the events at the AGM to the Complainant did not attend his surgery as is claimed but spoke to him at the A30 dual carriageway exhibition.
Application to the Code of Conduct.
Failure to treat others with respect.
All complains made under the ethical standards regime are assessed taking an objective view of the subjective facts as presented. I have, in assessing this matter, read the views of both the Complainant and Councillor Batters and do not consider that Councillor Batters has failed to treat the complainant with respect for the following reasons.
It is noted that the Complainant did not attend the AGM of the Parish Council on 20 May 2013 but has accepted on hearsay that the third party was ‘disgusted’ that Councillor Batters made reference to the Complainant in public, though has not stated why the third party was disgusted. Councillor Batters has stated that in discussing the matter he was making a suggestion to resolve the matter after concerns were raised by both Parish Councillors and members of the public.
The referral to the Inspector was done at the request of the Parish Council. This is confirmed by the minutes of the Parish Council meeting held on 21 May 2013 which state at minute 61/13;
‘It was also agreed that the Clerk contact Councillor Batters to set up a meeting with a senior police representative to express our opinions on the lack of police attendance and reports to Parish Council meetings.’
With regards to the statement a third party alleges Councillor Batters made to a meeting of Lanivet Parish Council; I can find no credibility in this statement as it is not further supported.
While it is appreciated that the Complainant may have concerns that a complaint has been made against him; it is considered that by making the complaint, Councillor Batters was responding to a formal resolution of Cardinham Parish Council that a meeting be set up. I find the minutes of the Parish Council meeting confirming this highly persuasive and that they should be so concerned to pass this resolution supports Councillor Batters version of events at the AGM on 20 May 2013. I find little in the hearsay evidence provided to dissuade me.
I consider that a reasonable person, taking an objective view of the facts would consider that Councillor Batters was acting in the best interests of all concerned by taking the course of action he did and therefore, and particularly because of the resolution of Cardinham Parish Council, I consider Councillor Batters has not breached the Code of Conduct for Cornwall Council by failing to treat the Complainant with respect.
I have further considered if, by his actions, Councillor Batters has brought his office or authority into disrepute. For disrepute to be shown it has to be objectively considered if the Councillor has suffered a loss of reputation or standing due to their actions.
In acting as he did Councillor Batters was firstly responding to concerns raised at the AGM and then to the resolution of the Parish Council. The course of action was the right one; that is, concerns being raised in a formal manner if all other routes were exhausted. In looking at this objectively Councillors Batters’ actions were measured and proportionate to the concerns as raised and I do not consider that by taking these actions that a reasonable person would consider Councillor Batters has brought his office or authority into disrepute.
My findings, taking an objective view of the facts, are that there is no breach of the Code of Conduct by Councillor Batters in relation to the allegations as made.
What happens now?
This decision notice is sent to the complainant and the member against whom the allegation has been made.
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 28 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.
SJR Mansell MBE
Principal Legal Officer
On behalf of the Monitoring Officer
Date: 24 July 2013