CCN009/13 Reference:
Complainant:
Subject Member:
Person conducting the Assessment:
Date of Assessment:
Complaint
Confidential
Councillor Jon Stoneman, Cornwall Council
Simon Mansell – Principal Legal Officer, Corporate
Governance
29 May 2013
On 29 May 2013 the Monitoring Officer considered a complaint concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor Stoneman of Cornwall Council. A general summary of the complaint is set out below:
The Complainant has alleged that on the 13 April 2013 while issuing a parking ticket to a vehicle in Bassett Road, Camborne, the driver of the vehicle came out of a nearby premises and called the Complainant a ‘prat’ and asked if he didn’t have anything better to do on a Saturday afternoon. The driver of the vehicle did not identify himself by name but did say that he was a Cornwall Councillor and Councillor
Stoneman was later identified in photographs.
Potential breaches of the Code of Conduct as put forward by the Complainant are;
 Failure to treat others with respect;
 Conducting yourself in a manner which is contrary to the Council’s duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct; and
 Improperly using your position to gain an advantage or disadvantage.

Decision and breaches of the Code Found
For the reasons as set out below I make a finding of no breach of the Code of Conduct in relation to the following paragraphs of the Code of Conduct;
 Conducting yourself in a manner which is contrary to the Council’s duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct; and
 Improperly using your position to gain an advantage or disadvantage.
I further find that Councillor Stoneman has breached the following paragraph of the
Code of Conduct for Cornwall Council;
 Failure to treat others with respect.
Reasons
Sufficient information has been obtained to enable this complaint to be assessed and determined without the need to refer the complaint for investigation and the undertaking of interviews. In assessing this complaint I have had regard to;
 the complaint as submitted by the complainant;
 the response to the complaint submitted by Councillor Stoneman;
 the views of the Independent Person allocated to this matter
In normal circumstances an altercation of this nature would not be such that it would be one that would be considered under the Code of Conduct; as the subject member could be said to have been acting in their private capacity when parking their vehicle to deliver goods which were not connected with Council business. However, the Code of Conduct states at paragraph 1.4 the following;
1.4
Subject to paragraphs 1.5 and 1.6 of this Code you must comply with this Code whenever you:
(a) conduct the business of the Council, which in this Code includes the business of the office to which you have been elected or appointed; or
(b) act, hold yourself out as acting or conduct yourself in such a way that a third party could reasonably conclude that you are acting as a representative of the Council and references to your official capacity are construed accordingly.
By making reference to the fact that he was a Cornwall Councillor, Councillor
Stoneman has passed from private capacity to official capacity and therefore the Code of Conduct applies to the incident on 13 April 2013.
Failure to treat other with respect.
The Code of Conduct allows for what is termed ‘robust political debate’ but requires that a Councillor, when acting in their official capacity, to set a higher standard of behaviour. While a member can, in their official role, be critical of the work of an officer, an attack of a personal nature is often considered to be a breach of the Code of Conduct.

Councillor Stoneman is alleged to have called the Complainant a ‘prat’ and asked him if he had nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon.
In his response to the allegation Councillor Stoneman states he does not recall exactly what was said but if he is in the wrong he is happy to apologise.
Taking an objective view of the facts; it is considered that the term ‘prat’ is a derogatory term when used in this particular context, that is addressed to the
Complainant, who was clearly required to work on a Saturday afternoon as part of his contractual commitments, with the comments thereby questioning if he had nothing better to do bringing a further personal element to the statement made.
While the possible frustration on the part of Councillor Stoneman over being issued a ticket can be understood; it is considered that by addressing the Complainant in the manner in which he did amounts to disrespectful treatment and I therefore consider that because of this Councillor Stoneman has breached paragraph 2.1 of the Code of
Conduct.
Conducting yourself in a manner which is contrary to the Council’s duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct.
The Localism Act requires that Councils promote and maintain high standards of conduct. A single act which may amount to a breach of Code does not mean that the subject member was working against the Council’s duty.
In looking at the facts of the allegation, and while Councillor Stoneman is found to have failed to treat the Complainant with respect, I do not believe that his behaviour goes against the Council’s duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct, as
Councillor Stoneman has readily agreed to apologise for any transgression. As a result I do not consider that Councillor Stoneman is in breach of paragraph 2.5 of the
Code of Conduct.
Improperly using your position to gain an advantage or disadvantage.
When a Councillors brings the fact they are a Councillor into a incident such as this there is always the possibility that it could be inferred by doing so the Councillor was seeking to gain an advantage of the situation by mentioning they are a Councillor.
Both the Complainant and Councillor Stoneman have said that Councillor Stoneman raised the fact that he was a Cornwall Councillor. Councillor Stoneman has stated this was not used in a threatening way and there is no implication in the complaint that it was.
While it is considered Councillor Stoneman would have been better served not mentioning the fact he was a Councillor in a matter which related to his private capacity the manner in which this was used does not imply that Councillor Stoneman was seeking to gain an advantage or disadvantage from the fact he was a Councillor.
Therefore I find no breach of the Code of Conduct in relation to paragraph 2.11.
Sanction
Councillors should at all times, when acting in their official capacity, treat others with respect. While it is noted that compared to abuse the Complainant may get from

others he did not consider the remarks made particularly offensive, the Complainant did consider that as a Councillor, Councillor Stoneman should not have been offensive towards him.
I have noted that Councillor Stoneman is willing to apologise for any offense caused by his actions and it is therefore considered that this is a suitable sanction.
Councillor Stoneman is to address an apology, via the Monitoring Officer, to the
Complainant within 28 days of the date of this notice. Once such an apology is received this matter is to be closed.
In reaching this decision I have had regard to the views of the Independent Person.
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 subject member, the Monitoring Officer can review and is able to change a decision not to refer an allegation for investigation or other action. A different Officer to that involved in the original decision will undertake the review.
We must receive a written request from the subject member 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.
It should be noted reviews will not be conducted by the same person who did the initial assessment.
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: 31 May 2013