ASSESSMENT DECISION NOTICE
A BREACH OF THE CODE HAS BEEN FOUND
Reference:
CCN0024/14
Complainant:
STOKES, Mr Matthew, Solicitor and Corporate
Governance, Property and Commercial Group
Manager, Cornwall Council Legal Services
SHOTTER, Mr Robert, Cornwall Inshore Fisheries
and Conservation Authority (CIFCA)
Subject Member:
Person conducting
the Assessment:
Julian Kitto, Legal Services Manager
Date of Assessment:
8 September 2014
Complaint
On 3 September 2014 the Monitoring Officer considered a complaint from Mr Matthew
Stokes concerning the alleged conduct of Mr Robert Shotter of Cornwall Inshore
Fisheries and Conservation Authority (CIFCA). A general summary of the complaint is
set out below:
The Complainant has referred for assessment a complaint based on an email dated 21
July 2014 in which the Subject Member has made disparaging remarks concerning
those ‘within the offices of Cornwall Council’ and in particular stating that the level of
corruption therein knows no bounds.
Paragraphs of the Code of Conduct the Complainant suggests are engaged are:



failure to treat others with respect;
conducting yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing
your office or authority into disrepute; and
conducting yourself in a manner that is contrary to the Council’s duty to promote
and maintain high standards of conduct.
Decision
The Subject Member has breached the Code of Conduct with which members of the
CIFCA are required to comply by:
(i) failing to treat the Complainant with respect by alleging corruption directly in
response to advice provided by the Complainant to another member of the CIFCA;
(ii) conducting himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing
his office and authority into disrepute by making unsubstantiated allegations of
corruption; and
(iii) conducting himself in a manner that is contrary to the Council’s duty to promote
and maintain high standards of conduct by virtue of the preceding breaches of the
Code of Conduct.
In response to these breaches I consider it appropriate for the complaint and this
decision to be referred to the Marine Management Organisation for that organisation
to determine whether it wishes to take any action under its terms and conditions for
the appointment of representatives to the CIFCA. I do not consider there to be any
demonstrable benefit in requesting the Subject Member to provide an apology to the
Complainant.
Reasons
In assessing this complaint I have had regard to the complaint and supporting
information submitted by the Complainant; the response to the complaint made by
the Subject Member; and the views of the Independent Person.
It is important to contextualise the complaint, if only to address the submissions of
the Subject Member as to whether the Complainant has improperly obtained the
subject e-mail.
The Complainant had been in correspondence with a CIFCA member who, like the
Subject Member, is appointed to the CIFCA by the Marine Management Organisation.
That correspondence related to procedural issues surrounding the calling of a Special
Meeting of the CIFCA on 16 June 2014. The Complainant received an e-mail that was
not from the MMO appointed CIFCA member with whom he had been corresponding.
The Complainant had copied the Subject Member into his e-mail but the response
received, in which the allegations of corruption were made, was not immediately
attributable to the Subject Member because of the alternative e-mail address used.
However, following enquiries it was confirmed that the offending e-mail was from the
Subject Member, such confirmation also coming direct from the Subject Member.
Irrespective of the e-mail address used by the Subject Member, it is clear to me that
the Subject Member was acting in his official capacity as a member of the CIFCA in
sending the e-mail in which allegations of corruption are made. Accordingly, the Code
of Conduct was engaged and the Subject Member was required to comply with the
Code.
Apart from making the comment ‘…the level of corruption within the offices of
Cornwall Council knows no bounds it would seem’, the Subject Member also makes
comments in the subject e-mail reflecting his view that the Complainant had no grasp
of the reality of the situation and that officers of the Council had conspired with the
CIFCA Chairman and at least one CIFCA officer. The “grasp of reality” comment could
be construed as being disrespectful to the Complainant but I am not persuaded that it
amounts to a breach of the Code of Conduct. On any reasonable analysis it is not
comparable to an allegation of corruption. The “conspiracy” comment could properly
be construed as being disrespectful to the Chairman of the CIFCA and officers of the
Council but given the seriousness of the unfounded allegation of corruption I do not
consider it necessary to consider this particular point further in this decision.
The Complainant is an experienced and professional officer and it is clear from reading
his correspondence related to this complaint that the advice he has provided is
considered, objective and correct. For the Subject Member to allege corruption in
response to that correspondence is unjustified and disproportionate. Such allegation
is also without any substance. To allege corruption goes significantly beyond
suggesting the Complainant’s advice was flawed and effectively alleges either
dishonesty or the use of the Complainant’s position for some improper purpose. That
is far beyond what can reasonably be considered as acceptable and is a clear breach
of the Code of Conduct.
The Subject Member in responding to the complaint suggests that the Complainant
has intercepted an e-mail that was not addressed to him. That is a fabrication. The
Subject Member sent the offending e-mail to the Complainant and subsequently
confirmed by way of an e-mail to the Complainant, also on 21 July 2014, that he
stood by the views previously expressed and he clearly articulated his understanding
that the Complainant was at that point aware of his views. The original e-mail was
not marked confidential, was not intercepted, was sent to the Complainant by the
Subject Member albeit in error and the Subject Member confirmed his views in an email properly addressed to the Complainant on the same day.
There has been no improper conduct on the part of the Complainant in relation to the
offending e-mail. I am mindful of the Complainant’s duty of fidelity to his employer
and he has acted appropriately in response to an unsubstantiated allegation of
corruption in an unsolicited e-mail.
The Complainant has made it clear to me that he is not concerned to receive an
apology from the Subject Member for the allegation of corruption as he is satisfied
that it is without any legitimate basis. However, and reflecting his professional
standing and loyalty to his employer, he is concerned to ensure that the conduct to
which his complaint relates are appropriately addressed and that the reputations of
the Council, the CIFCA and the Marine Management Organisation are legitimately
protected.
As the Subject Member is appointed to the CIFCA by the Marine Management
Organisation I am of the view that it is appropriate and proportionate for that
organisation to be afforded the opportunity to consider this complaint under its own
procedures. The Council’s procedures for the assessment of Code of Conduct
complaints permit discretion to be exercised in responding to findings of breach of the
Code of Conduct. I consider the referral of this complaint to be an appropriate and
justifiable exercise of that discretion.
What happens now?
This decision notice is sent to the complainant, the member against whom the
allegation has been made and the Marine Management Organisation.
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 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.
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.
Legal Services Manager
On behalf of the Monitoring Officer
Date: 8 September 2014