Agenda Item 3
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Standards Committee held on 14 May 2013 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00 pm.
Members present:
1.
District
Councillors:
Mrs H Cox (Chairman)
Mr P W Moore
Miss B Palmer
Mr J Savory
Mr R Stevens
Mr P Williams
Co-opted
Members:
Mr A Bullen
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 Member
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr R Barr, Mr M Coates, Mrs M Evans, Mr H
Gupta, Mr B Hannah 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 Member was present and said that he 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 179
The Chairman invited the Monitoring Officer to introduce the complaint. He
explained that it was only the second Hearing under the new Standards
Standards Committee
1
14 May 2013
regime and the first for a District Councillor. He said the process would be
relatively informal and at the discretion of the Committee. The Investigator’s
report was included within the agenda pack and the sanctions available to the
Committee were outlined. The context of the complaint was around an email
exchange between the Subject member and the Complainant. This was
reproduced as part of the Investigator’s report and the Committee would need
to decide whether that exchange demonstrated a lack of respect. The
Complainant was not present at the Hearing so the committee would have to
rely on the evidence within the report and any additional information provided
by the Subject Member at the Hearing.
Mr J Savory suggested that as the Committee had all read the Investigation
report it would be helpful if the Subject Member put forward his case.
Mr G Jones started by saying that he felt the investigation had been poorly
managed. He had raised his concerns with the Monitoring Officer who had
agreed to arrange for an independent review of the process. This had been
carried out by Ms P Carey at nplaw. She had concluded that although the
investigation process could have been more detailed, the investigator had
taken the view that it was a straightforward investigation and that the emails,
which formed the basis of the complaint, spoke for themselves.
Mr Jones reiterated that he still believed the investigation process to be
flawed and that the investigator had failed to understand the nature of political
banter. He explained that it would be helpful if the Committee were made
aware of the background to the emails. He said that he had first clashed with
the Complainant, Mr Oliver at a meeting of the Council Tax Support Working
Party, when Mr Oliver had asked him the same question six times. He felt that
this was aggressive and patronising.
The email exchange had begun following this meeting when Mr Jones had
sent an email to the Working Party proposing that a resolution was put to the
next meeting. The Committee Administrator had inadvertently omitted the
Chairman from the circulation list and when Mr Oliver saw that a resolution
was being proposed he replied that the Chairman should be made aware. Mr
Jones said that he felt this was interfering and objectionable and sent an
email response calling him a rookie councillor. The resolution was
subsequently drafted in conjunction with Mr G Williams and Ms V Gay and Mr
Jones was frustrated when he heard that Mr Oliver then contacted Mr G
Williams in an attempt to reach an agreement. He then sent a further email to
Mr Oliver telling him to ‘grow-up’.
The Chairman thanked Mr Jones for the information and invited the
Committee to ask questions:
1.
Mr P W Moore said that it seemed to be a spat between two opposing
politicians. He said that he was concerned that Mr Jones believed that
the report did not cover the whole story and he wondered why the
process had taken so long. Mr Jones replied that someone else would
have to respond as he had never received an answer when he had raised
the same question. The Monitoring Officer reiterated that a second
opinion had been provided on the methodology of the report. This had
slowed the process down and it was delayed further by Mr Jones’ request
to postpone the Hearing so that he could campaign for the County
Standards Committee
2
14 May 2013
Council elections. He then reminded the Committee that even if they
discounted the method of investigation the allegation would remain and it
would need to be considered at a future date.
The Chairman invited the Investigating Officer to respond. She said that the
email exchange was the basis of the complaint and therefore was the main
evidence. She added that it was difficult to dispute the content of the emails
only the mitigating circumstances. The draft report had been produced
following Mr Jones’ response to her initial enquiries. No further evidence had
been offered. Mr Jones had requested that Ms Gay and Mr G Williams were
interviewed but she could not see what this would add to the investigation as
they were not involved in the email exchange.
2.
Mr J Savory said that he believed the timescales were quite acceptable
and that the evidence was there for Members to see in the form of the
email exchange between Mr Jones and Mr Oliver. Mr Moore replied that
he felt that the Committee was disadvantaged as only one side of the
argument was presented to them and he still didn’t understand why the
investigator had not interviewed Ms Gay and Mr G Williams. The
Investigating Officer restated that she did not feel that interviewing them
would add anything to the investigation. The main issue was whether the
words that Mr Jones had used in the email exchange were respectful and
the Committee needed to consider whether it constituted a standard of
debate that the Council would wish to uphold. She added that she had
acknowledged in the report that politicking was involved. Mr Moore said
that he would have been interested to know what other group members
views were on the issue as the emails did not provide any background
information.
3.
Mr P Williams said that he had seen worse behaviour. He had noticed
that most of the emails were sent from Mr Jones’ mobile phone which
implied that they had been sent quickly without much consideration. He
then asked Mr Jones why he had not sent the resolution to Mr Oliver
when he first requested it. Mr Jones replied that at the time he wasn’t
ready to put forward an alternative proposal and that a draft was sent as
soon as it was ready. He said that he found Mr Oliver’s attitude to be
patronising and that he felt angry. He said that he had not realised that
Mr Oliver was so sensitive and that he might change his language in
retrospect.
4.
Mr R Stevens asked Mr Jones to confirm that he had used the terms
‘rookie’, ‘schoolboy’, ‘calm down’ and ‘grow up’. Mr Jones confirmed that
he had and that he stood by them. Mr Stevens asked Mr Jones whether
his earlier comment that he might change his language implied that the
original words were insulting and offensive. Mr Jones said that they were
not. In response to a further question as to whether they were respectful,
he said that they were not particularly disrespectful.
The Monitoring Officer said that the Committee had now had a thorough
discussion around the main issues and it might be helpful to hear the views of
the Independent Person, Mr A Oram.
Mr Oram said that he considered the methodology when he received the
report. He acknowledged that the investigation could have been wider but
Standards Committee
3
14 May 2013
agreed that it had been kept proportionate and that the evidence was
sufficient. He had some sympathy for the argument that it was just political
debating but he said that the complaint had been made and the Committee
now needed to consider whether a breach had occurred. He concluded by
saying the principles of Leadership, as outlined in the Code of Conduct
should not descend to levels that others have demonstrated. He felt that the
choice of words used by Mr Jones were intended to belittle and humiliate the
Complainant by referring specifically to his age and position.
At 12.50pm, the Chairman thanked everyone for their contribution and asked
that all those present, except the Committee and the Monitoring Officer to
leave the room so that the Committee could reach a decision.
At 1.15pm, the Subject Member and the Independent Person were invited
back into the room. The Chairman asked the Monitoring Officer to convey the
Committee’s decision to the Subject Member. He said that the
Committee had resolved unanimously to accept the findings of the
Investigating Officer that Councillor Jones was in breach of the following
paragraphs of North Norfolk District Council’s Code of Conduct:


valuing colleagues and staff and engaging with them in an appropriate
manner
Always treating people with respect
The Committee had agreed that the Subject Member’s behaviour was not
justified by mitigating circumstances and that a letter of reprimand would be
sent to him in due course.
The meeting concluded at 1.20 pm
___________
Chairman
Standards Committee
4
14 May 2013