Agenda item

Investigation on a Complaint against a Former District Councillor

Minutes:

The Council’s Monitoring Officer provided a summary of the report and stated that former Councillor J Cartwright was now living in East Africa.  He explained that the Investigating Officer had offered to interview Mr Cartwright by Skype which had been declined.  Also, no comments had been received in terms of the draft report but that comments had been subsequently received via email on 13 December 2016.  These were circulated to Members of the Sub-Committee. 

 

The Chairman stated that the nature of the former Councillor’s comments were disappointing and following advice from the Monitoring Officer, Members supported the suggested that Mr Cartwright’s comments be made publically available.

 

The Monitoring Officer drew Members’ attention to the Investigator’s Report and recommendations.   The Independent Person (IP) explained that, as a matter of formal record, Members needed to consider why the meeting should proceed in the absence of Mr Cartwright.  Councillor B Deering commented that Mr Cartwright’s email to the Monitoring Officer should provide sufficient validation.  Councillor P Boylan added that Mr Cartwright had responded quickly to the Monitoring Officer’s email and he had already made a decision not to respond to the Investigator’s draft report citing that it was “a complete waste of time”.

 

The IP explained that having considered the evidence, he was satisfied that former Councillor Cartwright was acting in an “official capacity” and there had been a breach of the Council’s Code of Conduct.  He referred Members to paragraphs 5.20, 5.26 and 5.34 of the report as evidence that the code had been breached and which served to aggravate matters over a long period and that his conduct fell below the expectations the public would have of a Member. 

 

The IP explained that in relation to the breaches of the code, he had also been criticised for other breaches and had failed to attend, as requested, training on the use of Social Media.  In mitigation, the IP explained that the breaches were at the “lower end of appropriateness” and that Mr Cartwright did not deny what he had said, that there was some evidence of “pro-action” on his part but that this did not justify the former Councillor’s actions.  In terms of risk, the IP explained that as he was no longer a Member, the risk he posed of other offences was diminished.

 

 

 

The Monitoring Officer asked Members whether they felt that the former Councillor was acting in an official capacity and whether there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct.  He explained that if they agreed that he had acted in an official capacity and that there had been a breach, then the only sanction now available was a motion to censure the former Member at Council.  This was supported.

 

The IP stated that a motion to censure would have no impact on Mr Cartwright personally, but that it was right to let the public at large know.

 

The Sub-Committee received the report and agreed that Mr Cartwright had acted in an official capacity and in doing so, had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.  The Sub-Committee agreed that he be censured for his conduct.

 

RESOLVED - that (A) the report of the          investigating officer be received;

 

(B)   former Councillor J Cartwright was acting in his official capacity and in doing so, had failed to comply with the Council’s Code of Conduct;

 

(C)   former Councillor J Cartwright be censured for his conduct in respect of the matter detailed in the Investigating Officer’s report now submitted; and

 

(D)   the wording of the censure motion be delegated to the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Chairman of Standards Sub-Committee.

 

Supporting documents: