To consider a complaint received against member in relation to an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct for Councillors and Co-opted Members.
Minutes:
The investigating Officer (Michelle Dodds) presented her final report (copies of which had been circulated) of investigation into complaints received regarding the conduct of Councillor McAuley as follows:
Complaint 4
The letter disclosed information from a document provided to Councillor McAuley in confidence
Complaint 5
The letter brought the Council into disrepute by criticising officers and the Council
Complaint 1
By sending a letter to 900 email addresses Councillor McAuley used Council resources for a political purpose
Complaint 2
In the letter Councillor McAuley referred to Neil Derbyshire convictions in a malicious way which amounted to bullying and abusive behaviour
Complaint 3
The underlying purpose of the letter was to undermine and discredit Sue Derbyshire so as to use Councillor McAuley’s position improperly to confer an advantage on himself and/or a disadvantage on Sue Derbyshire
She summarised the nature of the five complaints, her findings of fact, recommendation and reasons.
Councillor McAuley made representations and asked questions during the Investigating Officers submission. Members of the sub-committee also asked questions.
Councillor McAuley was invited to present his case and the Investigating Officer and members of the sub-committee were invited to ask questions.
The Independent Person then made representations before the above parties summed-up and withdrew from the meeting whilst the sub-committee deliberated the representations made.
The meeting then reconvened and the Investigating Officer, Independent Person and the complainant (Mr Neil Derbyshire) and his wife (Mrs Sue Derbyshire) were in attendance. Councillor McAuley was not present.
The Chair reported that the standards sub-committee had found as follows:
BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY
In relation to the complaint 4 that Councillor McAuley had disclosed confidential information in a resignation letter sent on 11 April 2016 and in relation to the disclosure of a draft Council report, the subcommittee found that Councillor McAuley had breached the Code of Conduct.
The reasons given by Councillor McAuley for making the disclosure were considered to be largely irrelevant. Councillor McAuley knew that the Council report was a draft and that it had been withdrawn. The appendices to the reports marked confidential. The email covering the report was marked confidential and contained reference within it to the confidential nature of the appendices. Once withdrawn the report no longer represented the intentions of the Council. It therefore had no value to prove anything as it was going to be rewritten. The sub-committee considers that Councillor McAuley‘s aim of ensuring that the unacceptable draft report should not go forward to consideration at the Executive has been achieved.
DISREPUTE
In relation to the complaint 5 that the resignation letter brought the Council into disrepute by criticising officers and the Council the sub-committee found that there had been a breach of the Code.
The sub-committee felt this was a finely balanced issue. Taken as a whole the letter is critical of the Council by suggesting that the Council's strategy and consultation was inadequate and this criticism could not be justified criticism in the context of a withdrawn report which Caroline Simpson’s email of 6 April 2016 shows was withdrawn for a number of reasons including to correct the problems with consultation.
USE OF RESOURCE FOR A POLITICAL PURPOSE
In relation to the complaint 1 that Councillor McAuley used Council resources for a political purpose when sending the resignation letter from his Stockport email address; the sub-committee found that there had been a breach of the Code.
Councillor McAuley accepted that this had amounted to a breach of the Code.
BULLYING AND ABUSIVE BEHAVIOUR
In relation to the complaint that Councillor McAuley’s resignation letter amounted to bullying and abusive behaviour. The sub-committee found that there had not been a breach of the Code and agreed with the report of the Investigating Officer.
IMPROPERLY CONFERRING A DISADVANTAGE
In relation to the complaint 3 that the underlying purpose of the letter was to undermine and discredit the former Councillor Sue Derbyshire. The sub-committee found that there had not been a breach of the Code.
The sub-committee agreed that the effect of the letter was to undermine Sue Derbyshire and confer reputational disadvantage however the sub-committee does not agree that this was a breach of the Code, although the references were inappropriate they were not improper.
SANCTIONS
The sub-committee then heard representations from the Monitoring Officer and Independent Person in relation to whether or not sanctions should be applied, and if so, what form these should take.
The Monitoring Officer, Investigating Officer, Independent Person and the complainant (Mr Neil Derbyshire) and his wife (Mrs Sue Derbyshire) withdrew from the meeting whilst the sub-committee considered the issue of sanctions before being invited back into the meeting.
It was reported that the sub-committee had imposed the sanctions set out below:
A summary of the finding of fact of the sub-committee and of the reasons for the finding should be published as a minute of the meeting on the Council’s website. The finding of fact and sanctions imposed should be reported to the next Standards Committee on 21 November 2016.
The Monitoring Officer is requested to circulate a notice to all Councillors setting out the finding of fact of the sub-committee and of the reasons for the finding including details of the sanctions imposed.
The Monitoring Officer be requested to arrange training for Councillor McAuley as soon as practicable in relation to his obligations under the Code of Conduct and in particular in relation to confidentiality of information provided to him. Until the training has been completed, Councillor McAuley should only be provided with confidential information in paper form and on each occasion he should sign a declaration that he will not disclose its contents without the advice of the Monitoring Officer.