Agenda and minutes

A representative of the Assistant Director for Legal and Democratic Services advised the Sub-Committee that the meeting was inquorate by virtue of the number of those elected members present being less than the minimum of three at the commencement of the meeting. 

The Sub-Committee could therefore not constitutionally purport to proceed to consider the business on the agenda, and immediately terminated its proceedings.

The meeting reconvened at 6.30 pm on 28 March 2023.

PRESENT

Councillor Anna Charles-Jones, Mr Stephen Clarke (Independent Member), Councillor Dickie Davies and Councillor Steve Gribbon.

Also In Attendance

Val Cottam    – Independent Person

To elect a Chair for the duration of the meeting.

RESOLVED – That Mr Stephen Clarke be elected chair of the Sub-Committee for the duration of the meeting.

To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2016.

The Minutes (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting held on 14 September 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Councillors and officers are invited to declare any interests which they have in any of the items on the agenda for the meeting.

Councillors and officers were invited to declare any interests they had in any of the items on the agenda for the meeting.

No declarations of interest were made.

To report any urgent action taken under the Constitution since the last meeting of the Sub-Committee.

No urgent decisions were reported.

Members of the public are invited to put questions to the Chair on any matters within the powers and duties of the Sub-Committee, subject to the exclusion set out in the Code of Practice.  (Questions must be submitted prior to the commencement of the meeting on the card provided.  These are available at the meeting.  You can also submit via the Council’s website at www.stockport.gov.uk/publicquestions)

Members of the public were invited to put questions to the Chair on any matters within the powers and duties of the Committee, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice.

No public questions were submitted.

To consider whether it is in the public interest to exclude the public during the consideration of Agenda Item 6 which has been marked ‘not for publication’ by virtue of Category 1 of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), as it contains information relating to an individual.

A representative of the Assistant Director for Legal & Democratic Services reported upon the receipt of a representation that the proceedings of the Sub-Committee be held in public and that the Sub-Committee resolves accordingly.

The Sub-Committee considered the representation, and it was then

RESOLVED – That in order to prevent the disclosure of information which was not for publication relating to any individual, the disclosure of which would not be in the public interest, would not be fair and would be in breach of Data Protection principles, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the Agenda Item 7 – ‘Complaint received in relation to the Councillors Code of Conduct’ (see Minute 8 below).

To consider a report of the Monitoring Officer.

The report details a complaint received against a member in relation to an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct for Councillors and Co-opted Members.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing the outcome of an investigation into a complaint in relation to the conduct of Councillor Vine and outlining procedure to be followed by the Standards sub-committee in conducting a local hearing into the complaint. 

The Monitoring Officer reported that she had appointed an Investigating Officer in the form of the Deputy Monitoring Officer to undertake a formal investigation to examine the complaint.

The Investigating Officer (Michelle Dodds) then presented her final report (copies of which had been circulated) of the investigation into the complaint received regarding the conduct of Councillor Vine with specific regard to several retweets on Councillor Vine’s Twitter feed during June and July 2022 which were alleged to have breached the following aspects of the Council’s adopted Code of Conduct for Councillors and Co-opted Members:-

(i)            Section 2.8 - Members should promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person, and by treating people with respect, regardless of any characteristic included in the Equality Act 2010.

(ii)          Section 5 - You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the Council into disrepute.

(iii)         Section 2.3 - Members should not place themselves in situations where their honesty and integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.

The Investigating Officer summarised the nature of the complaint, her findings of fact, recommendation and reasons and then responded to questions from members of the Sub-Committee and Councillor Vine.

Councillor Vine attended the meeting and presented her case and then responded to questions from members of the Sub-Committee and the Investigating Officer.

The Independent Person then made representations before the Investigating Officer and Councillor Vine was afforded the opportunity to summarise their positions.

The Investigating Officer, Independent Person and Councillor Vine and were then asked to withdraw from the meeting whilst the sub-committee deliberated the representations made.

Upon the resumption of the hearing, it was

RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee was of the view that on the balance of probabilities, Councillor Vine was responsible for the retweeting of the three tweets that were the subject of the complaint. 

In arriving at this view, the Sub-Committee noted that Councillor Vine had taken no action to investigate, restrict access to or otherwise close the account in the light of the complaint. 

The Sub-Committee also did not hear any evidence that the account had been compromised or that the tweets had been fabricated. 

Moreover, there had been a lack of any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the material had been fabricated through a motivation to remove Councillor Vine from the Conservative Party because of her political views and there had been a failure to provide evidence to substantiate the assertion that other councillors elsewhere in the country had been subject to the same behaviour.

The Sub-Committee therefore found that the retweets were a breach of the Code of Conduct and as a consequence and on the balance of probabilities it upheld all three complaints, namely that the retweets constituted a breach of the following sections of the Council’s adopted Code of Conduct for Councillors and Co-opted Members:-

(i)            Section 2.8 - Members should promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person, and by treating people with respect, regardless of any characteristic included in the Equality Act 2010.

(ii)          Section 5 - You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the Council into disrepute.

(iii)         Section 2.3 - Members should not place themselves in situations where their honesty and integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.

The Sub-Committee then heard representations from the Monitoring Officer and Independent Person in relation to whether or not sanctions should be applied,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.