Issue - meetings

LGA 1972, Sch 12A Paragraph 1 and 2 – Information relating to an individual and information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual

Members are asked to consider a report in respect of complaints made by Members of a Parish Council/ Clerk to a Parish Council that a Parish Councillor had breached the Parish Council’s Code of Conduct

On 18 November 2022, the Hearing Panel of the Joint Standards Committee of Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (“the Panel”) and all of the Parish Councils within the administrative area of Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (“TMBC”) considered a report of an investigation into the alleged conduct of Councillor Steve Perry (“the Subject Member”) in his capacity as a member of Borough Green Parish Council.

1.     Application of Schedule 12A Local Government Act 1972

1.1.  The complaints and Investigating Officer’s Report were presented to the Panel in private papers, as the information presented consisted of information relating to an individual, and information which could reveal the identity of an individual (paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 12A).

1.2.  The Panel was invited to consider whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption – and therefore holding the hearing in private - outweighed the public interest in having the matter heard in public.

1.3.  The Monitoring Officer submitted that it was in the public interest to hold the matter in public, transparency being a key part of the Nolan Principles. It was therefore important that in discharging its duties in respect of upholding the highest standards of conduct that the public should be entitled to view proceedings.

1.4.  The Monitoring Officer did acknowledge there were third parties who might be identified through the process, but felt that their identities could be protected without the matter being dealt with in private.

1.5.  The Subject Member submitted that the matter should be heard in private to ensure that he was able to give an open account of what he believed were important factors in the case.

1.6.  In light of the representations made, the Panel considered that it was important that parties should not feel they were unable to speak freely and therefore, in the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exemption should prevail and the matter should be heard in private.  

2.     Summary of Decision and Reasons

2.1.  The Panel were asked to consider whether Parish Councillor Steve Perry (the “Subject Member”) has breached the Borough Green Parish Council Code of Conduct in relation to two member obligations:

-      Paragraph 3, which requires that a member shall not “seek to improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person”.

-      Paragraph 5, which requires that a member shall not “disclose information which is confidential or where disclosure was prohibited by law”.

2.2.  In relation to paragraph 3, the Panel concluded, on the balance of probabilities on the evidence presented to it that: (i) the Subject Member had made contact with a third party; (ii) in the circumstances, he did not have consent from the Parish Council to do so, such that the contact with that third party was improper; (iii) that, at least in part, the intent had been to disadvantage Parish and Borough Councillor Mike Taylor.

2.3.  The Panel therefore found that the Subject Member had breached this obligation.

2.4.  In relation to paragraph 5, the Investigating Officer  ...  view the full decision text for item 5

The Hearing Panel of the Joint Standards Committee gave consideration to an allegation that a parish councillor had breached the Code of Conduct of Borough Green Parish Council.  The Panel was asked to consider whether Parish Councillor Steve Perry (the ‘Subject Member’) had breached the Code of Conduct in relation to two member obligations:

-        Paragraph 3, which requires that a member shall not “seek to improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person”.

-        Paragraph 5, which requires that a member shall not “disclose information which is confidential or where disclosure was prohibited by law”.

The Panel received the report of the external independent investigator (Investigating Officer), Mr Oram of CH&I Associates, who had been appointed to carry out the investigation into the allegation.  The report, dated 26 September 2022, contained details of the relevant legislation and protocols, evidence gathered and witness statements made by and supporting the complainants and was presented by Mr Hedges (Associate Investigator) of CH&I Associates.  The Investigating Officer’s report found that the Subject Member had failed to comply with paragraph 3 of the Parish Council’s Code of Conduct.

The Panel had regard to all the evidence, including the Investigating Officer’s report and the evidence given by the Subject Member, both written and oral, and, having taken into account the views of the Independent Person, concluded, on the balance of probabilities on the evidence presented to it, that in relation to paragraph 3:

(i)         the Subject Member had made contact with a third party;

(ii)       in the circumstances, he did not have the consent from the Parish Council to do so, such that the contact with that third party was improper;

(iii)      that, at least in part, the intent had been to disadvantage Parish and Borough Councillor Mike Taylor.

The Panel therefore found that the Subject Member had breached this obligation.

In relation to paragraph 5, the Investigating Officer set out in his report and in answers given to the Panel’s questions that the information which the Subject Member communicated to the third party had not possessed the necessary quality of confidence to constitute information which was confidential.  The Panel found that the Subject Member had not breached this obligation.

Having found that there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct the adopted arrangements for dealing with complaints required that the Panel heard representations from the Monitoring Officer and the Independent Person on whether there should be any sanctions imposed.  In coming to its conclusions on the sanctions the Panel again had regard to the legal advice provided and was mindful of the need to impose reasonable and proportionate sanctions.

The Hearing Panel therefore

RESOLVED:  That the following sanctions be imposed

(1)             that Borough Green Parish Council be recommended to issue a formal censure by motion to Parish Councillor Steve Perry; and

(2)             the findings of the Hearing Panel be published on the Borough Council’s website.

The Panel considered that recommending a formal censure by the Parish Council was appropriate.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

Members are asked to consider a complaint made by the Parish Clerk that a Parish Councillor had breached the Parish Council’s Code of Conduct

The Hearing Panel of the Joint Standards Committee gave consideration to an allegation that a parish councillor had breached the Code of Conduct of Kings Hill Parish Council.

The Panel received the report of the external independent investigator (Investigating Officer), Mr A Oram of CH&I Associates, who had been appointed to carry out the investigation into the allegation.  The report, dated 29 March 2021, contained details of the relevant legislation and protocols, evidence gathered and witness statements made by and supporting the complainant.  In addition to the Investigating Officer’s report the Panel agreed to accept and have regard to a written statement received from the Solicitor to the Subject Member dated 16 March 2021 which had been circulated as a supplementary report in advance of the meeting.

The Investigating Officer made an oral presentation to the Panel regarding the complaint made by the complainant about the conduct of the Subject Member on a number of occasions between 17 March and 17 June 2020.  The report concluded that, following the events of 17 March 2020, the Subject Member had failed to treat the complainant with respect, to the extent that he bullied and intimidated her.  The Investigators also found that the Subject Member had subsequently criticised and challenged the complainant in an inappropriate manner with the intention to embarrass and demean her.

The Investigating Officer’s report concluded that there had been breaches of the Kings Hill Parish Council Code of Conduct on the part of the Subject Member consisting of a failure to observe the following Member Obligations:-

“When a member of the Council acts, claims to act or gives the impression of acting as a representative of the Council, he/she has the following obligations

(1)             He/she shall behave in such a way that a reasonable person would regard as respectful; and

(2)             He/she shall not act in a way which a reasonable person would regard as bullying or intimidatory.”

The Subject Member indicated that he had no questions to put to the Investigating Officer regarding his report.

The Panel heard the views of the Independent Person, Mr D Mercier, who acknowledged the Subject Member’s decision to instruct his solicitors to provide his written statement but expressed concern that the only real evidence of the matters set outin the complaint was the account of the complainant set out in the Investigator’s report.  The Independent Person noted that, while refuting the account of the complainant, the Subject Member had failed to provide any specifics relating to the conversations which had taken place.  The Independent Person felt that the Subject Member’s lack of engagement with the process may not have helped and believed that, on the balance of probabilities and in the absence of any real evidence to the contrary, there seemed to have been a breach in the Code.

The Panel had regard to all the evidence, including the Investigating Officer’s report and the evidence given by the Subject Member, both written and oral, and, having taken into account the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5