Issue - meetings

Complaint in Respect of a Councillor, Reference EHDC/09/2011

 

 

Meeting: 18/12/2012 - Standards Sub-Committee (Item 3)

3 Complaint in Respect of a Councillor, Reference EHDC/09/2011 pdf icon PDF 23 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report on a complaint alleging that Councillor M Alexander’s actions at a meeting of the Authority’s Development Control Committee had breached the Councillors Code of Conduct.

 

The complaint was the subject of an investigation by an independent Investigating Officer appointed by the Monitoring Officer.

 

The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Investigating Officer’s findings on the complaint in accordance with its approved procedure.

 

The Standards Sub-Committee, in consultation with the Independent Person, determined that in relation to the breach of the code allegation relating to:

 

(A)      a failure to treat others with respect – there was no case to answer.  It considered under no circumstance did Councillor Alexander make any disrespectful comments about other councillors and participants, and

 

(B)      bringing the office (of councillor) into disrepute - Councillor Alexander was entitled to speak and did present background information to the Development Control Committee.  He was not fettered by previous knowledge of the project.  The Investigating Officer’s report was comprehensive. There were no facts that pointed to the office of Councillor being brought into disrepute and therefore there was no case to answer.

 

           RESOLVED - that in relation to the breach of the code allegation concerning Councillor M Alexander relating to:

 

(A)      a failure to treat others with respect – there was no case to answer - under no circumstance did Councillor Alexander make any disrespectful comments about other councillors and participants, and

 

(B)  bringing the office (of councillor) into disrepute - Councillor Alexander was entitled to speak and did present background information to the Development Control Committee.  He was not fettered by previous knowledge of the project.  The Investigating Officer’s report was comprehensive. There were no facts that pointed to the office of Councillor being brought into disrepute and therefore there was no case to answer.