Decision details

Complaints in respect of Much Hadham Parish Councillors S Bannerman, A Baxter and I Hunt

Decision Maker: Standards Sub-Committee

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

The Sub-Committee considered a report by the Monitoring Officer on complaints received alleging that Much Hadham Parish Councillors S Bannerman, A Baxter and I Hunt had breached their Authority’s Code of Conduct.

 

The Monitoring Officer tabled a copy of Much Hadham Parish Council’s Code of Conduct.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the detail of each complaint and the evidence provided by each complainant in support of their allegations.

 

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that, having consulted the Independent Person, he did not consider the complaints could be resolved informally.

 

The Monitoring Officer invited the Sub-Committee to consider each complaint individually against the (published) assessment criteria of the Authority’s Complaints Procedure.

 

The Sub-Committee retired to a separate room to consider each complaint.

 

After careful consideration of the complaint made by Mrs S Wetherall against Parish Councillor S Bannerman, in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria, the Sub-Committee determined that no further action be taken as the subject had already made an apology to the complainant.  The Sub-Committee noted the complainant’s suggested remedy.  It expressed a view that transparency in all forms of government was an important principle.  Insofar as it fell within the Sub-Committee’s remit, the Monitoring Officer was requested to notify Much Hadham Parish Council of its view that all concerned with the issue at the heart of the complaint (“the pavilion project”) should ensure full transparency in relation to the associated decision making processes and financial activities.  The Sub-Committee considered that the Clerk, as the proper officer of the parish council, had a particular responsibility to ensure that the activities of the Authority were fully transparent to all parishioners.

 

After careful consideration of the complaint made by Mrs M O’Neill against Parish Councillor S Bannerman, in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria, the Sub-Committee determined that no further action be taken as the local resident identified had received an apology from the subject.  The Sub-Committee noted the complainant’s suggested remedy.  It expressed a view that transparency in all forms of government was an important principle.  Insofar as it fell within the Sub-Committee’s remit, the Monitoring Officer was requested to notify Much Hadham Parish Council of its view that all concerned with the issue at the heart of the complaint (“the pavilion project”) should ensure full transparency in relation to the associated decision making processes and financial activities.  The Sub-Committee considered that the Clerk, as the proper officer of the parish council, had a particular responsibility to ensure that the activities of the Authority were fully transparent to all parishioners.

 

After careful consideration of the complaint made by Mrs A Farmer against Parish Councillors S Bannerman and A Baxter, in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria, the Sub-Committee determined that the allegations be referred to the Monitoring Officer for investigation. The Sub-Committee noted the evidence submitted regarding a meeting of the Parish Council held on 6 October 2015.  It was evident that the debate at this meeting became heated.  The Monitoring Officer was requested to notify the Parish Council that the Sub-Committee would encourage all persons involved with that Authority and the pavilion project to conduct meetings in a moderate and mutually respectful manner.  Whoever was chairing meetings should use that office to achieve this objective.  The Sub-Committee further noted the complainant’s suggested remedy.  It expressed a view that transparency in all forms of government was an important principle.  Insofar as it fell within the Sub-Committee’s remit, the Monitoring Officer was requested to notify Much Hadham Parish Council also of its view that all concerned with the issue at the heart of the complaint (“the pavilion project”) should ensure full transparency in relation to the associated decision making processes and financial activities.  The Sub-Committee considered that the Clerk, as the proper officer of the parish council, had a particular responsibility to ensure that the activities of the Authority were fully transparent to all parishioners.

 

After careful consideration of the complaint made by Dr A Baxter against Parish Councillor I Hunt, in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria, the Sub-Committee determined that no further action be taken as insufficient detailed evidence was provided on the actual statement made by the subject member at the identified meeting of Much Hadham Parish Council.  The Sub-Committee noted the complainant’s suggested remedy.  It expressed a view that transparency in all forms of government was an important principle and noted the entitlement of elected representatives to call for transparency and accountability in relation to the expenditure of the public’s money.  Insofar as it fell within the Sub-Committee’s remit, the Monitoring Officer was requested to notify Much Hadham Parish Council of its view that all concerned with the issue at the heart of the complaint (“the pavilion project”) should ensure full transparency in relation to the associated decision making processes and financial activities and be welcoming of questions, whether from residents or councillors, designed to elicit transparency.  The Sub-Committee considered that the Clerk, as the proper officer of the parish council, had a particular responsibility to ensure that the activities of the Authority were fully transparent to all parishioners.  Further, all members of an Authority should treat their fellow members with respect and, where meetings become heated, a Chairman’s discretion be exercised to call for a temporary adjournment to facilitate further debate in a moderate and calm manner.  The Sub-Committee agreed to request the Monitoring Officer to offer to provide training to Much Hadham Parish Councillors on the provisions of their code of conduct, particularly as they apply to debate at meetings of the Authority.

 

          RESOLVED – that (A) no further action be taken, for the reasons now detailed; in respect of the complaints made by Mrs Wetherall and Mrs O’Neill against Parish Councillor S Bannerman and Dr A Baxter against Parish Councillor I Hunt;

 

(B)     the complaint made by Mrs Farmer against Parish Councillors S Bannerman and A Baxter be referred to the Monitoring Officer for investigation, and

 

(C)     the Monitoring Officer be requested:

 

(1)           to offer to provide training to Much Hadham Parish Councillors on the provisions of their code of conduct, particularly as they apply to debate at meetings of the Authority, and

(2)           to notify Much Hadham Parish Council that the Sub-Committee considered that all concerned with the issue at the heart of the complaint (“the pavilion project”) should ensure full transparency in relation to the associated decision making processes and financial activities and be welcoming of questions, whether from residents or councillors, designed to elicit transparency.

 

Publication date: 15/01/2016

Date of decision: 24/11/2015

Decided at meeting: 24/11/2015 - Standards Sub-Committee

Accompanying Documents: