Agenda Item 3
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Standards Committee held on 04 June 2013 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am.
Members present:
1.
District
Councillors:
Mr B Hannah (Chairman)
Miss B Palmer
Mr R Stevens
Mr P Williams
Co-opted
Members:
Mr A Nash
Officers in
Attendance:
The Monitoring Officer
The Investigating Officer
The Democratic Services Officer (ED)
Also in
attendance:
The Independent Person
The Subject members
The Complainant
Members of the public
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr R Barr, Mr M Coates, Mrs H Cox, Mrs M
Evans, Mr H Gupta, Mr P W Moore, Mr J Savory and Mrs A Shirley
2.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were no items of urgent business.
3.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
4.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
The Committee considered whether the public should be excluded. The
Subject members were present and agreed that they had no objections to the
Hearing being held in public. The Committee agreed that and confirmed that
consequently the minutes would also be publicly available.
5.
COMPLAINT REFERENCE 172 – TRUNCH PARISH COUNCIL
The Chairman invited the Monitoring Officer to introduce the complaint. He
explained that there were seven subject members which was unusual.
Standards Committee
1
th
4 June 2013
Consequently, the allegations against each subject member would need to be
considered separately. The complaint had been made before the adoption of
the new Code, so it would be considered under the old Code but within the
new arrangements. He added that the investigation report had found no
breaches and that he had used his discretion as Monitoring Officer to bring
the complaint to a Hearing following further representations made by the
Complainant.
The Chairman then invited the Investigating Officer to present her report.
The Investigating Officer began by voicing her concerns that three additional
documents had been submitted on the Complainant’s behalf in the run-up to
the Hearing. She believed that the last item, a letter, received on the morning
of the Hearing did not add anything to the original allegations and should
therefore be disregarded.
The Monitoring Officer asked the Committee Clerk to distribute copies of all
the additional documents to the Subject members as they had not seen them
yet. The Chairman proposed that there was a 10 minute break to allow
everyone to read all of the documentation.
The meeting reconvened at 10.30am.
Before introducing the investigation report, the Investigating Officer addressed
concerns raised by the Complainant that the process had been prejudiced by
delay. She explained that she had received the request to undertake the
investigation in September 2012 and that a draft report was completed in
December 2012. The Complainant had challenged the findings of the draft
report. A Hearing was initially scheduled for March 2013 but District Councillor
G Jones, who was supporting the Complainant, had requested a deferral as
he was campaigning in the County Council elections.
The Investigating Officer then introduced her report. She said that there were
several separate complaints regarding a meeting of Trunch Parish Council
that had taken place on 6th June 2012. Some of the allegations were quite
general and subjective, such as the accusation that the subject members
‘bayed’ at the Complainant. She added that she had asked the Complainant if
she could be more specific but she could not.
The background to the complaint, covering the run-up to the meeting on the
6th June, was outlined. It was explained that the Complainant had attended
this meeting to speak on item 5.4 of the agenda which related to the
ownership of the land outside the Crown Inn. There were several other
members of the public at the meeting who were present for various issues
during the public participation section of the meeting. This session was quite
lively and ran over the allotted time and it was at this point of the meeting that
the Complainant alleged that the Chairman told several members of the public
(including herself) to ‘shut up’. She said that she had been told that as there
was not sufficient time to raise her concerns regarding item 5.4, she would be
able to speak when the item came up on the agenda. However, when item 5.4
was discussed and the Complainant tried to speak she was told by the ViceChairman ‘Madam, the time for public participation has passed, kindly shut
up’. The Complainant made several further allegations including the Chairman
Standards Committee
2
th
4 June 2013
using the term ‘liars’, ‘baying’ at the Complainant and asking her to ‘name
names’ and when she refused, saying ‘ the lady won’t name names, so what
does that tell us about this lady’s character?’
The Investigating Officer explained to the Committee that she had contacted
the Subject members individually to get their response to the allegations.
They each denied any wrongdoing and strongly refuted that they had
breached the Code of Conduct. In addition, she spoke to the Clerk of the
Parish Council as she was in attendance at the meeting of 6th June. She did
not contact any members of the public who had attended that meeting as the
process would have been costly and it was likely that they may not be
independent as they would have attended the meeting for a specific reason.
She added that the Complainant was able to call witnesses during the
Hearing so the Committee would still be able to hear their views. The
Investigating Officer then drew the Committee’s attention to a series of
witness statements which the Complainant had submitted as part of the
investigation process. They were all identical and could not be considered to
have the same status as an independent witness statement. She added that
witness testimonies were unlikely to ever be the same as people had different
perceptions and viewpoints of the same incident and consequently the
statements should not be given weight as evidence.
The Investigating Officer informed the Committee that there was no dispute
that the Chairman of the Parish Council had told people to ‘shut up’. This was
the worst of the allegations and so she queried why the subject members
would admit to that but dispute everything else. In considering this specific
complaint, the committee needed to consider whether it was disrespectful and
therefore in breach of the Code. The Subject member concerned claimed that
it was said in the context of trying to gain control of the meeting.
The Investigating Officer then drew the Committee’s attention to Mr R Parfitt’s
statement which had been submitted recently by the Complainant. Mr Parfitt
was one of the Subject members and was not in attendance at the Hearing.
The Investigating Officer had contacted him twice during the investigation
process and had received no response.
She concluded by saying that she had found no breach in any of the
allegations and believed that none of them were very serious. The
Complainant had not been able to provide additional evidence to support her
allegations which were of a general nature and the evidence submitted on
behalf of members of the public did not carry weight as it was all identical.
The Chairman invited those present to ask questions:
1) District Councillor G Jones said that the Complainant had approached him
and asked for his support as she believed that there was a conspiracy of
silence. He then asked the Investigating Officer to explain why she had
ignored the 5 witness statements that had been provided by the
Complainant. The Investigating Officer reiterated that each piece of
evidence needed to be assessed on its own merits. The Complainant had
written the statement and asked people to sign it. It was also possible that
some of the people who had signed the statement had an ‘agenda’ in that
they had a specific reason for attending the parish council meeting and
may already feel aggrieved about an issue that the parish council were
dealing with. She added that as previously stated, witnesses never
Standards Committee
3
th
4 June 2013
produce the same statement for the same event and therefore they had
lower evidential value than a statement taken recording a witnesses own
memory of an event.
2) Mr G Jones then asked why the Investigating Officer had not followed up
the statements with an interview if she had concerns. She replied that the
Investigator had to make a judgment as to the value of witnesses and in
this case she felt they were now tied to one version of events. In response
to a further question regarding the similarity of the Subject members’
statements, she replied that they were similar but they were all from an
individual viewpoint and they did not use the same phrases or
terminology.
3) Mr G Jones then referred to a series of similar actions by the Parish
Council that he felt indicated a longer-term problem. The Monitoring
Officer said that other strands and other proceedings were not relevant to
this Hearing. Only the events that took place at the meeting on 6th June
were relevant.
4) Mr G Jones asked why there had been a delay in processing the
complaint. The Monitoring Officer explained that there were various
reasons - it was the first complaint under the new system and he wanted
to involve the Independent Person and he had not been appointed at that
stage, there was also no process for assessing complaints in place at that
point, the investigation process then took approximately 3 months and this
was then followed by the delays that the Investigating Officer had outlined
earlier. He said that the process could be discontinued now with the
agreement of the Committee if the Complainant felt that the delay was
unfair to the Subject members.
The Chairman proposed that the meeting was adjourned for 10 minutes.
The meeting reconvened at 11.30am.
The Chairman then invited the Complainant to address the Committee:
The Complainant requested that District Councillor G Jones spoke on her
behalf.
Mr Jones began by reading out a letter from Mr R Parfitt, one of the Subject
members. The Monitoring Officer reminded him that he needed to focus on
the events of the 6th June as it was that meeting that was the subject of the
complaint. Mr Jones responded that Mr Parfitt supported all the allegations.
He then called his first witness, Mr D Wild, a member of the public. Mr Wild
said that he had attended the meeting of 6th June to air a personal grievance.
He confirmed that the behaviour which was the crux of the complaint did not
take place during the public session of the meeting but during item 5.4 of the
agenda. It was then that the Complainant was told to ‘shut up’ and a
reference made to her character.
Mr P Cockburn, one of the Subject members asked Mr Wild whether he
remembered telling him that he did not think that Councillor Cockburn was at
the meeting. Mr Wild confirmed this but said that he stood by his statement.
The Investigating officer asked Mr Wild to clarify what he meant by airing a
‘personal grievance’. He said that it related to the Chairman’s statement in the
local newsletter. In response to a further question as to whether he had a
negative view of the parish council when he attended the meeting on 6th June,
he said that he was not happy with them at the time of the meeting.
Standards Committee
4
th
4 June 2013
The Investigating Officer then asked if Mr Wild could be specific about what
people were saying when they ‘bayed’ at the Complainant. He said that he
could not but that there was ‘general bad talk’. When prompted by the
Investigating Officer to name the Subject members who had ‘bayed’ he said
that he believed it was Councillor Leeder and Councillor Jones. The
Investigating Officer said that in his statement he had named Councillor
Fordham, Councillor Wooldridge, Councillor Parfitt and Councillor Cockburn
as the subject members who were baying.
Mr A Nash, a co-opted member of the Committee asked Mr Wild if he could
elaborate on the circumstances in which he had signed his statement. Mr Wild
said that he had volunteered to sign the document and that he signed it at
home, having collected it from the pub.
Mr N Lee was then invited to speak as a witness for the complainant. He told
the Committee that he had attended the meeting on 6th June because of the
Chairman’s report in the local newsletter and the village pump. He confirmed
that the public session of the meeting was lively and disorganised. The
Investigating Officer asked him to clarify what the Chairman had said during
the public session. Mr Lee confirmed that he heard Councillor Fordham shout
several times and that he had heard him say ‘shut up’ and call people liars. In
response to a further question as to whether this was said directly to the
Complainant, he said he did not think it was. The Investigating Officer asked
him to state specifically what Councillor Smith had said. Mr Lee said that he
should not have included him when he signed the statement. Following further
questioning regarding what the subject members had specifically said, Mr Lee
said that he could not recall as it was a long time ago. He did confirm that all
of the Subject members were looking at the complainant when they shouted.
CouncillorJones (a Subject Member) asked whether Mr Lee could remember
who had spoken first – the complainant or himself. Mr Lee said that he could
not recall. Councillor Jones confirmed that it was him as he wished to resolve
the issue between them.
District Councillor Jones then asked Mr Lee if anyone had challenged the
Chairman over his behaviour. Mr Lee said that believed so.
Mr R Stevens, a member of the Committee asked Mr Lee to explain how he
had come to sign the statement. Mr Lee said that the Complainant had come
to his house.
Mr P Williams, a member of the Committee, asked Mr Lee if he had been to
any meetings of the parish council since 6th June. Mr Lee said that had been
to one and that it was much quieter.
The complainant, Mrs Lomax, was then invited to address the Committee.
She said that she had attended the meeting on 6th June because she had
concerns about the release of her personal data in the local newsletter. This
had subsequently been reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office
(ICO). She confirmed that the reference to ‘baying’ in her complaint related to
the demands for her to ‘name names’. She clarified that she had hoped to
speak during the public session of the meeting but that when this had overrun
she had been told that she could speak when Agenda item 5.4 was
discussed. It was then that she was told to ‘shut up’ and ‘name names’. At this
point in the meeting, Councillor Smith had turned and looked at her. She
Standards Committee
5
th
4 June 2013
added that although the subject members had not addressed her directly, it
had happened during the discussion of an item on the agenda relating to her
so it was unlikely that they were addressing anyone else.
Mrs Lomax told the Committee that she had written the witness statement
when the Investigating Officer told her that she wouldn’t be interviewing
individual witnesses. She said that the Investigating Officer had advised her
that asking the witnesses to write their own statements would not be
beneficial and that was why she had taken this approach.
In response to a question from District Councillor Jones, Mrs Lomax said that
she had not called anyone a liar.
The Investigating Officer referred Mrs Lomax to a letter dated 28th January
2012 and whether the use of the word ‘slanderous’ in that letter implied that
the Subject members were lying. Mrs Lomax said that she believed that they
were not telling the truth. In response to a further question relating to an email
sent on 4 January 2012, Mrs Lomax confirmed that paragraph 3 indicated that
the subject members were not telling the truth. She added that it was
confusing when two people said one thing and the rest said another.
The Investigating Officer then read out some notes that she had made
summarising a conversation with Mrs Lomax during the early stages of the
investigation. Mrs Lomax confirmed that they were an accurate summary of
the discussion. The Investigating Officer then asked Mrs Lomax why she had
not agreed to meet with the parish council privately to try to resolve the
problems. Mrs Lomax said that she did not want to embarrass one of the
members of the parish council who she dealt with on a daily basis.
The Investigating Officer asked Mrs Lomax if she could state exactly what
each of the Subject members had said to her and when. Mrs Lomax said that
Councillor Fordham had told her to ‘shut up’ when she had tried to speak
again, Mr Smith had told her to apologise and Mr Jones had asked her to
‘name names’. In response to a further request to clarify what was said during
the ‘baying’, Mrs Lomax said that it was a just a wall of abuse.
Councillor P Cockburn asked Mrs Lomax to clarify her reference to ‘several
different and reliable sources’ and exactly how many people this meant. Mrs
Lomax said that it referred to two people.
The Monitoring Officer reminded the meeting that it was important to focus on
the specific allegations and confine the discussion to the evidence as to the
conduct at the meeting on 6th June.
Mr R Stevens asked Mrs Lomax whether she had prepared the witness
statements. She confirmed that this was the case and said that she had told
people that they could cross out anything that they didn’t agree with. In
response to a further question as to why she had selected 7 people out of the
20 that had attended the meeting, she said that they had sat closest to her.
Mr A Nash asked Mrs Lomax whether she could confirm that she had told the
Clerk that she wished to draw a line under things. Mrs Lomax agreed but said
that this view had changed when the Annual Report was published.
Standards Committee
6
th
4 June 2013
District Councillor Jones asked Mrs Lomax how she felt when she arrived at
the meeting on 6th June. She said that she had gone along quite calmly but
had left feeling browbeaten, upset and angry.
Mr P Williams sought to clarify some of the issues that Mrs Lomax had
complained about. He wondered why she had not included the issue of
publishing her personal data as part of the complaint as it seemed to be a
much more serious issue. Mrs Lomax said that she complained to the ICO
about this issue first and had been advised by the Investigating Officer that for
this reason it could not be included within the subsequent complaint sent to
the Monitoring Officer.
The meeting was adjourned from 12.55pm to 1.00pm.
The Monitoring Officer again reminded the meeting that they were considering
the allegations outlined in the complaint all of which took place on 6th June
2012.. There had been a lot of discussion about background events but they
were not relevant.
The Chairman then invited the Subject members to address the Committee.
Mr A Fordham, Chairman of the Parish Council spoke first. He said that the
meeting on 6th June had been rowdy and several people had spoken at once.
He had told everyone to shut up in an attempt to regain control. He did not
feel that his tone had been disrespectful. The Investigating Officer asked
Councillor Fordham whether he believed that ‘baying’ had taken place during
the meeting. He said that he did not understand the term and that it was not
an appropriate description.
Mr P Williams asked whether, as Chairman, he had use of a gavel to silence
the meeting. Councillor Fordham said that he did not.
Mr A Nash asked Councillor Fordham whether he had considered suspending
standing orders at item 5.4 of the agenda to allow Mrs Lomax to speak.
Councillor Fordham said that he decided the matter was not a parish council
issue and was therefore irrelevant.
The Independent Person, Mr A Oram, asked Councillor Fordham whether he
could confirm that he had asked Mrs Lomax to apologise. Councillor Fordham
said that he could not recall but he did feel an apology was due. In response
to a further question as to whether the parish council meeting was the right
forum to ask Mrs Lomax to ‘name names’, Councillor Fordham said that he
was not sure.
Councillor Smith then addressed the Committee. He said that he had been
sitting several seats away from Mrs Lomax and therefore she must have been
mistaken when she said that he had turned around and looked at her. The
Investigating Officer asked him to outline his recollection of the meeting on 6th
June. Mr Smith said that it was rowdy and out of control and that the
Chairman tried to regain order. In response to a further question as to
whether ‘baying’ had taken place, Mr Smith said that it had not. He confirmed
that his recollection of item 5.4 of the agenda was that there had been a lot of
discussion but this had come from the parishioners not the parish council.
Standards Committee
7
th
4 June 2013
Mr P Cockburn was invited to address the Committee. He started by saying
that he did not speak at all during the meeting of 6th June. He found it
physically difficult to speak and some members of the public had said
subsequently that they had not realised he was there. The Investigating
Officer asked him how one of the witnesses who had signed a statement had
reacted when he informed her that he was at the meeting. Councillor
Cockburn said that she became flustered.
Mr R Stevens asked Councillor Cockburn why had had not responded to the
Investigating Officer when she had initially approached him with the
complaint. Councillor Cockburn said that he did not respond as he felt that the
issue had gone on too long.
Mr Jones then addressed the Committee. He said that he took being called a
liar very seriously. Mr Oram asked him to confirm his statement that at no
time had he asked Mrs Lomax to name names and apologise. Mr Jones said
that this was correct. In response to a further question as to why these
comments were included within the parish council minutes, Mr Jones said that
he felt there should have been an apology but he had not asked Mrs Lomax
for one.
Mr Leeder, Vice-Chairman of the Parish Council then addressed the
committee. He said that he believed that it was his duty to back-up the
Chairman and that he had advised the Chairman when the public session was
over. He confirmed that he had never said ‘shut up’. It was not in his nature.
The Investigating Officer invited Mrs Julie Chance, Clerk to the Parish Council
to speak. Mrs Chance confirmed that the meeting of 6th June had started well
but quickly became unruly. She had found it difficult to take minutes and has
asked the Chairman to gain control. Mrs Chance confirmed that the Chairman
had said ‘shut up’ but that this was addressed to the whole meeting.
The Investigating Officer then asked Mrs Chance whether she could recall
how Item 5.4 of the agenda was dealt with. Mrs Chance said that Mrs Lomax
had tried to speak but was told by Mr Leeder that public participation session
of the meeting was over. He had not told her to shut up. She acknowledged
that the parish council felt that they were owed an apology over being
accused of lying but that any demands for an apology were not aimed at
anyone specifically. In response to a further question as to whether there had
been ‘baying’, Mrs Chance said that Councillor Cockburn did not speak and
Mr Smith had only spoken briefly. She did not hear Mr Jones demand that
Mrs Lomax ‘name names’.
District Councillor Jones asked Mrs Chance whether the Chairman had told
people to ‘shut up’. She confirmed that he had but generally – to the whole
meeting. In response to a comment from Mr Jones saying that the clerk could
not be considered independent as she was employed by the parish council,
Mrs Chance said that she had a contract with the parish council as a whole
not with individuals.
Mr Oram asked Mrs Chance whether she could recall the Chairman telling
people to ‘shut up’ during item 5.4 of the agenda. Mrs Chance said that she
could not but acknowledge that it was noisy.
The meeting adjourned from 1.45pm to 1.50pm.
Standards Committee
8
th
4 June 2013
The Monitoring Officer advised the Committee that they needed to consider
the Investigation report and whether they upheld or rejected the findings.
They must then consider the evidence that they had heard during the Hearing
and whether any of this evidence changed their mind. Any findings of the
Committee would not apply to those subject members who had subsequently
resigned from the parish council.
The Monitoring Officer then invited the Independent Person, Mr Oram, to give
his views on the investigation report and the evidence presented at the
hearing.
Mr Oram said that it had been useful to hear from witnesses. He felt that the
Investigating Officer had made a cogent argument not to interview all the
witnesses but he believed that talking to those people that had attended the
meeting on 6th June could have assisted the process further.
In response to the specific allegations:
 Telling people to ‘shut up’ was not a breach of the Code.
 Accusing someone of calling members of the parish council liars was
not a breach of the Code.
 There was insufficient evidence to conclude that ‘baying’ had taken
place during the meeting of 6th June.
 It was not clear to whom the demands to apologise were addressed. It
could have been a discussion amongst the parish councillors and
therefore was not a breach of the Code.
 The demand to ‘name names’ was not supported by sufficient
evidence and therefore was not a breach of the Code.
District Councillor G Jones, speaking on behalf of the Complainant, said that
the parish council clearly needed training.
The Committee retired at 2.00pm to consider their decision. They returned at
2.10pm.
The Chairman thanked everyone for their tolerance of a long process, which
had concluded in a lengthy Hearing. He said that the Committee had reached a
unanimous decision. They upheld the findings of the Investigating Officer that
there had been no breaches of the Trunch PC Code of Conduct on the part of
any of the subject members. The Committee acknowledged that the meeting of
Trunch Parish Council held on 6th June 2012 had been lively and that the
subject members had likely been caught up with the excitement of the moment.
The Committee felt that it might be beneficial for the Parish Council to consider
undergoing some training.
The meeting closed at 2.15pm
___________
Chairman
Standards Committee
9
th
4 June 2013