Agenda and minutes

The Committee is asked to note any apologies for absence and substitutions received from Members.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Jo Henderson (with no substitute) and Councillor Ann Oxley (with Councillor Andy Baker substituting). In addition, an apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Clarissa Gosling, one of the Council’s Independent Persons.

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee, held on Wednesday 24 April 2024.

It was moved by Councillor Newton, seconded by Councillor Talbot and:-

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 24 April 2024 be approved as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman.

Councillors are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Other Registerable Interests of Non-Registerable Interests, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

Councillor Baker declared for the public record that he had had, in general terms only, a conversation with Councillor Turner about the Investigation into Councillor Turner’s alleged misconduct. This conversation had been several months ago. He confirmed that he did not consider himself pre-determined and that therefore he would remain in the meeting and take part in the Hearing.

Councillor Alexander declared for the public record that he was personally acquainted with Mr and Mrs Cannon (advocates for Councillor Turner) through shared political affiliations solely.  He confirmed that he did not consider himself pre-determined and that therefore he would remain in the meeting and take part in the Hearing.

Councillors Alexander, Baker, Land, Talbot and Wiggins were all acquainted with Ian Taylor (an advocate for Councillor Turner) through his previous employment as an Officer with Tendring District Council. None of those Members considered themselves pre-determined and they therefore remained in the meeting and took part in the Hearing.

Subject to providing two working days’ notice, a Member of the Committee may ask the Chairman of the Committee a question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the Tendring District and which falls within the terms of reference of the Committee.

No Questions on Notice had been submitted by Members pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 38 on this occasion.

In accordance with paragraph 7 of the District Council’s Complaints Procedure, the Monitoring Officer is required to refer a matter for a hearing before the Standards Committee, where an investigation concludes that there is evidence of a failure to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct and the Monitoring Officer has determined informal resolution is not appropriate.

This Part A Report provides background information and advice with regards to the Code of Conduct, legislation and procedures.

It was reported that a complaint had been received in August 2023 from Councillor Ernest Gibson (“the Complainant”), an elected Member of South Tyneside Council and the Chairman of the Local Government Association’s Coastal Special Interest Group, regarding the alleged behaviour of District Councillor Nick Turner under this District Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct.  That Code of Conduct was attached as Appendix A to the Monitoring Officer’s report (A.1).

Members were aware that the Local Government Association (“LGA”) was the national membership organisation for Principal Councils.  In view of the diversity of Councils in membership of the LGA, it had a number of Special Interest Groups (“SIG”).  Through those SIGs, all Councils with common characteristics could form groupings to express a sectional interest.  The LGA website indicated that it had 21 SIGs at present.  The LGA expected SIGs to have at least 10 Councils in membership.    SIGs were able to speak for their interests as part of the LGA provided their policies or statements did not conflict with, or undermine, LGA policy as a whole, or damage the interests of other member authorities. SIGs were able to make representations direct to Government and elsewhere on matters arising directly from their special interest, and to obtain LGA assistance in doing so. The LGA Coastal SIG existed to champion the collective interests of coastal communities by increasing awareness and debate on environmental, economic and social issues at all levels in relation to the coast.  It had a membership of 57 coastal local authorities. Together it covered 60% of England’s coastline and served 16 million people.

The Committee was informed that the aforementioned Complaint had been submitted on 16th August 2023 and referred to the alleged behaviour of Councillor Turner at two virtual meetings of the SIG held on 5th June and 29th June 2023, in that Councillor Turner had contravened this Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct.  Councillor Turner was the sole attendee at those meetings from Tendring District Council. 

Members were reminded that complaints received relating to the Code of Conduct must be dealt with in accordance with the Council’s formally adopted Complaints Procedure, as set out in Part 6 of the Council’s Constitution (Part 6.19 to 6.34). The Complaints Procedure was attached as Appendix B to the Monitoring Officer’s report (A.1), which had been adopted by full Council on 26th November 2013.

Pending completion of an Investigation of the complaint, the Committee was informed that the Leader of the Conservative Group, Councillor G Guglielmi, had suspended Councillor Turner from the Conservative Group and removed him from Committees whilst the investigation takes place. The Leader of the Council had done the same with regards to outside bodies. Since that time, Councillor Turner had left the Conservative Political Group on the Council and had sat as a non-aligned Councillor (i.e. not within a Political Group).

The Committee was made aware that, on 25th August 2023, the Monitoring Officer had decided that it was reasonable and appropriate that the Complaint merited further investigation.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Committee is requested to consider passing the following resolution:-

“That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that the conduct of the Hearing will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A, as amended, of the Act.”

Monitoring Officer’s Advice (as set out in the A.1 Report) – “That the exclusion of the press and public resolution is not passed, to enable the hearing to proceed with the Investigator’s Report in Public.”

Members were requested to consider passing the following resolution:-

“That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that the conduct of the Hearing will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A, as amended, of the Act.”

The Committee, earlier on in the meeting (under Minute 5 above) had duly noted the Monitoring Officer’s Advice (as set out in her A.1 Report) namely: “That the exclusion of the press and public resolution is not passed, to enable the hearing to proceed with the Investigator’s Report in Public.”

Ian Taylor, acting on behalf of Councillor Turner, made the following representation:-

“Councillor Turner has asked that this Hearing be conducted in Part B on the grounds that he’s already suffered quite considerably as a result of these allegations being made and the subsequent investigation. He’s lost his attendance at Committee, he’s had his Party whip withdrawn from and he’s already had his role as a Councillor severely reduced on the back of this allegations. I think that he would prefer just to trust to this Committee in its open and independent hearing to make a decision before we release any press release or any statements to the public. He thinks that’s fair, we think that’s fair and that’s the way we’d like to proceed.”

The Head of Democratic Services and Elections (Keith Simmons) referred to paragraphs 1 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A, as amended, of the Local Government Act 1972 and asked Mr. Taylor if he had any specific representations to make as to the applicability of those paragraphs.

Mr. Taylor responded as follows:-

“The information that we’d like withheld from the public at the moment is the allegation that Councillor Turner is a racist which comes out in many of the statements involved in this. We think that is a matter, which should stay private until it has proven to be true.”

The Chairman (Councillor Wiggins) adjourned the meeting at this time whilst the Committee retired to deliberate this matter. The Head of Democratic Services and Elections and the Executive Projects Manager – Governance (Karen Hayes) retired with the Committee to support the Committee Members in those deliberations.

Following the resumption of the meeting, the Chairman read out the following statement:-

“The Committee has considered the resolution set out in the Agenda at item 6 namely:-

‘That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that the conduct of the Hearing will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A, as amended, of the Act.’

Whether to exempt material and consideration of a matter under the exempt provisions referred to is a discretion for local authorities. It is not a requirement.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

This Part B Report provides background information and advice with regard to the Investigator’s report and findings.

(THIS REPORT IS “TO FOLLOW”)

The Committee was aware that Mr. Melvin Kenyon, of Kenyon Brabrook Ltd, had been appointed as the external investigator into the complaint against Councillor Nick Turner. The complaint and the Monitoring Officer’s Decision Notice had been used to define the scope of the investigation (as set out in Section 5 of the Investigation Report).  Councillor Turner’s initial response to the Complaint was included at section 5.2 of the Investigation Report.

Following a thorough investigation (the approach and formal interview methodology was set out in Section 6 of the Investigation Report) it had been concluded that there was sufficient evidence to show that Councillor Turner, based on a balance of probabilities and the evidence available, had breached Paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, 2.3 and 5.1 of the Council’s Code of Conduct.

Both parties had had the opportunity to comment on the draft Investigation Report and the findings contained therein.  Through consideration of the draft report, Councillor Turner had not indicated that he disputed the contents, the evidence presented or that he would wish to make further representations to those included within his interview.  Councillor Turner’s response was set out in Section 6.3 of the Investigation Report.  The Investigation Report had been finalised on 10^th January 2024 and had been formally sent to Councillor Turner on 23^rd February 2024.

If an investigation concluded that there was evidence of a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, the Council’s Complaints Procedure at Section 7.1 provided the Monitoring Officer with the authority to obtain an informal resolution, in consultation with the Independent Person, where it could reasonably be resolved without the need for a hearing by the Standards Committee. 

Although the procedure did not require consultation with an Independent Person if the Monitoring Officer considered that informal resolution was not an appropriate course of action, and that the matter should be referred for a hearing before the Standards Committee, it had been considered, by the Monitoring Officer that, on this occasion, seeking their view would be beneficial, prior to making the decision.  That communication and its response had been as follows:-

From Lisa Hastings, Monitoring Officer to Independent Person (Jane Watts) via email on 25^th January 2024:

“Dear Jane,

Further to Karen’s email and to progress to the next stage of the process, in respect of the complaint against Cllr Turner, I am required to decide either to refer the matter for a hearing before the Standards Committee or in consultation with one of the Independent Persons seek an informal resolution or mediation.  I have included the relevant extracts from the procedure for ease of reference

Although the procedure does not require me to consult an Independent Person if I consider that informal resolution is not an appropriate course of action, and that the matter should be referred for a hearing before the Standards Committee, I feel seeking your views would be beneficial. 

Councillor Turner offered an apology at the outset, when the complaint was received, however, at the time I  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Chairman will explain that:-

(1)    the hearing has been convened in accordance with the Council’s Complaints Procedure and that an investigation has been conducted, the outcome of which is that it is considered there is evidence of a failure to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct;

(2)    the Parties have been made aware of the content of the Investigator’s Report and that this has been circulated to all Members of the Committee;

(3)    the Monitoring Officer has referred the matter for a hearing because upon conclusion of the investigation, informal resolution was not considered appropriate, for the reasons given within the Committee Reports; and

(4)   the purpose of the Hearing is to consider the Investigator’s Report, the evidence in support and representations from the Parties. If the Committee departs from the recommendation from the Investigating Officer and/or Monitoring Officer detailed reasons will be required and which will be published in the Decision Notice.

The Chairman will then ask all persons present to introduce themselves.

The Chairman explained that:-

(1)   the hearing had been convened in accordance with the Council’s Complaints Procedure and that an investigation had been conducted, the outcome of which was that it was considered there was evidence of a failure to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct;

(2)   the Parties had been made aware of the content of the Investigator’s Report and that this had been circulated to Members of the Committee;

(3)   the Monitoring Officer had referred the matter for a hearing because upon conclusion of the investigation, informal resolution had not been considered appropriate, for the reasons given within the Committee Reports; and

(4)   the purpose of the Hearing was to consider the Investigator’s Report, the evidence in support and representations from the Parties. If the Committee departed from the recommendation from the Investigating Officer and/or Monitoring Officer detailed reasons would be required and which would be published in the Decision Notice.

The Chairman then asked all persons present to introduce themselves, which they duly did.  In the course of these introductions, it was noted that the Independent Persons present had the following roles:-

Sue Gallone (Independent Person) – allocated to support the Committee;

David Irvine (Independent Person) – allocated to provide support to Councillor Turner;

Jane Watts (Independent Person) – allocated to support the Monitoring Officer.

The Investigating Officer shall be invited to present their report including:

(i)     any documentary evidence or other material;

(ii)    call such witnesses as considered necessary; and

(iii)   make representations to substantiate the conclusion that the Councillor has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct

This report and documentary evidence must be based on the complaint made to the Council – no new points will be allowed.

The Investigating Officer then had the opportunity to present their report, which would include:-

(i)     any documentary evidence or other material;

(ii)    the calling of such witnesses as they considered necessary; and

(iii)   the making of representations to substantiate the conclusion that the Councillor had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.

That report and documentary evidence had to be based on the complaint made to the Council i.e. no new points were allowed.

The Investigator (Melvin Kenyon) reported that, on 16th August 2023, Cllr Ernest Gibson had submitted a Standards Complaint to Tendring District Council using the Council’s Complaint Form. The salient parts of the text read as follows:-

“I am the Chair of the Local Government Association Coastal Special Interest Group (“the Group”). It is in that capacity that I make this complaint, as it concerns the behaviour of Cllr Turner at the quarterly meeting of the Group which took place on 29th June 2023, and at a joint meeting which the Group had with the Environment Agency concerning the SMP [MK: Shoreline Management Plan] Explorer tool, on 5th June 2023. The meetings took place remotely, via the Zoom and Teams platforms. I am in no doubt that the Members’ Code of Conduct adopted by Tendring District Council applied to Cllr Turner at the material times, in view of the fact that he was attending the meetings in his capacity as a Councillor. I have set out the details of Cllr Turner's behaviour at each of the above meetings below

.

1. LGA Coastal SIG/Environment Agency SMP Explorer Feedback Session

This session was kindly held by the Environment Agency to afford elected members of the group an opportunity to discuss and provide feedback about the upcoming Shoreline Management Plan Explorer tool which is being developed in consultation with the Secretariat. At the session, Cllr Turner embarked upon a wholly inappropriate and disrespectful verbal attack upon Mr Nick Hardiman of the Environment Agency, in the context of setting out his negative views of Shoreline Management Plans and how he feels that his council will not be adopting the guidance provided (based on climate change modelling] in relation to future planning as it does not fit with the council's plans. Whatever his views of the tool, the personalisation of these views, directed as they were towards Mr Hardiman was not only highly disrespectful, but frankly shocking to those who witnessed it.

To compound matters, when Lead Officer Beccy MacDonald-Lofts attempted to politely steer the discussion back to the task at hand - that is - to allow all present to provide their feedback on the tool, Cllr Turner directed his aggression and disrespect towards her stating that he felt the work of the Secretariat was not good enough. Another Councillor attending the session commented in the chat, “I think it was brief comments Cllr Turner and this is a training session.” Cllr Turner’s behaviour was not only obstructive in terms of delaying the progress of this session,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Respondent Councillor (or their representative) may question (not cross-examine) through the Chairman:

(i)     the Investigating Officer upon the content of their report; and/or

(ii)    any witnesses called by the Investigating Officer.

This is solely the Councillor’s opportunity to ask questions rising from the Investigator’s report i.e. not to make a statement.

The Respondent Councillor (or their representative) then had the opportunity to question (but not cross-examine) through the Chairman:-

(i)     the Investigating Officer upon the content of their report; and/or

(ii)    any witnesses called by the Investigating Officer.

This was solely the Councillor’s opportunity to ask questions arising from the Investigator’s report i.e. not to make a statement.

Members of the Committee may question (not cross-examine) through the Chairman:

(i)     the Investigating Officer upon the content of their report; and/or

(ii)    any witnesses called by the Investigating Officer.

This is the Committee’s opportunity to ask questions rising from the Investigator’s report but not to make statements.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to question (but not cross-examine) through the Chairman:-

(i)     the Investigating Officer upon the content of their report; and/or

(ii)    any witnesses called by the Investigating Officer.

This therefore was the Committee’s opportunity to ask questions arising from the Investigator’s report but not to make statements.

The Respondent Councillor (or their representative) may:

(i)     present their case;

(ii)    call any witnesses as required by the Councillor or their representative; and

(iii)   make representations as why they consider that they did not fail to comply with the Code of Conduct.

The Investigating Officer may then question (not cross-examine) through the Chairman, the Respondent Councillor and/or any of their witnesses.

Members of the Committee may the question (not cross-examine) through the Chairman the Respondent Councillor and/or any of their witnesses.

In all instances, only questions will be permitted relating to the allegation(s) and the Respondent Councillor’s case and no statements should be made.

The Respondent Councillor (or their representative) then had the opportunity to:-

(i)    present their case;

(ii)   call any witnesses as required by the Councillor or their representative; and

(iii) make representations as why they consider that they did not fail to comply with the Code of Conduct.

The Investigating Officer then had the opportunity to question (but not cross-examine) through the Chairman, the Respondent Councillor and/or any of their witnesses.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to question (but not cross-examine) through the Chairman the Respondent Councillor and/or any of their witnesses.

In all instances, only questions would be permitted relating to the allegation(s) and the Respondent Councillor’s case and no statements could be made.

The Committee had had circulated to it in the days leading up to the Hearing the recorded text of Mr. Kenyon’s interview with Councillor Turner, together with a copy of Councillor Turner’s detailed defence submission.

Mr. Cannon presented the case on behalf of Councillor Turner as follows:-

“I would like to draw a couple of observations at the start. One is an extract from the Guidance on the Local Government Association Councillor Code of Conduct, which states under Respect – “You will engage in robust debate at times and you are expected to express, challenge and disagree with views, ideas, opinions and policies.” I’m sure that you are all aware of that and it is important that we recognise that Councillor Turner has devoted a lot of time and energy to studying his subjects especially in this area which is very close to his heart and he is very able to challenge the experts. The second observation that I would like to make concerns the witnesses having declined to attend especially the Complainant himself. We did request that all the witnesses who gave statements attended but as you have already informed none of them have. This could be seen as depriving Councillor Turner of a fair opportunity of questioning those accusing him.

You will all have received a copy of Councillor Turner’s defence submission. You will be pleased to know that I am not intending to read that to you. I am just going to summarise the main points.

I think it’s very important to take into account Councillor Turner’s 25 years of dedicated service. He has done a tremendous job for his community over the years.

He has consistently demonstrated professionalism even in the most heated debates. His responses though strong were in line with the robust nature of Council discussions. He has shown a willingness to engage and rectify any perceived breaches of conduct reinforcing his respect for the Council’s standards, demonstrating his integrity Councillor Turner has actively sought to mend fences whenever his actions were seen as disrespectful. His apologies and his willingness to engage in dialogue with effected parties underscore his commitment to fostering a harmonious working environment.

Councillor Turner has been misrepresented in his commitment to equality. His proven track record of actively participating in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The Investigating Officer may sum up the Complaint.

The Respondent Councillor (or their representative) may sum up their case.

The Investigating Officer (Melvin Kenyon) summed up the Complaint as follows:-

“The matter of capacity for me, on the balance of probability and the evidence available is not in question. I think Councillor Turner himself believed that he was a representative of the Council. Everyone who attended those meetings of the SIG believed him to be a representative of the Council. The Council paid the subscription fees to the SIG and Councillor Turner claimed expenses from the Council for his attendance, on occasion, at SIG meetings. Now these two meetings were virtual but we know that he previously claimed expenses. We could get into a semantic discussion about what “the Council” means, but it does seem to me that paying the subscription fees, sending Council Officers along with Councillor Turner when he attended meetings, paying his expenses when he claimed them, does indicate some kind of acceptance on behalf of “the Council” (whatever that means), of Councillor Turner being ‘in capacity’, quite apart from the fact that he agrees that he was in capacity.

I have set out the fact that based on the evidence available and the balance of probability there are four breaches of the Code, I won’t repeat them, we’ve heard them several times over. What I will say finally is this is not about Councillor Turner’s service as a Councillor over the years or his public service more generally. This is about issues more generally within those two SIG meetings that arose. Those are set out in my Report. I’ve drawn conclusions on the basis of the evidence available to me and I have concluded that Councillor Turner breached the Code of Conduct. Thank you.”

Mr. Ian Taylor then summed up the Respondent Councillor’s (Councillor Turner) case as follows:-

“We’ve heard the four allegations. I won’t repeat them again for brevity. I’ll go straight to the meeting on 5^th June where the Investigating Officer’s conclusions were that in behaving as he did Councillor Turner breached the Tendring District Council Code of Conduct by showing a lack of respect by attacking in a personal way two of the persons attending that meeting and, more generally, by failing to respect those attending the meeting and, in behaving as he did, he brought his own role as a Councillor into disrepute.

So the dispute here is how did he behave? How was his behaviour so reprehensible as to meet the criteria for this allegation? He’s acknowledged himself that he’s enthusiastic about this subject. He’s acknowledged himself that he was not fully aware of the purpose of this meeting. But nobody at any stage claimed a personal attack. There were no records of the meeting or a recording. These are all just people’s personal remembrances given some considerable time later. I think it was three months or more before this complaint was officially made.

Nick Hardiman, who was the Environment Agency representative there, said that he ‘does not remember some of the things that were said, but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The Independent Person will provide their views on this matter as to whether there has been a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, which the Committee will take into account before it makes its decision on the allegation that has been investigated.

The Independent Person then had the opportunity to provide their views on this matter as to whether there had been a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, which the Committee would take into account before it made its decision on the allegation.

Sue Gallone (Independent Person) made the following statement:-

“My views are on whether I consider there to have been a breach of the Code of Conduct. I’ve read all of the papers and I’ve listened very carefully to what we’ve heard here today. I’m very mindful that we’re talking here about the balance of probabilities and therefore I’ve given some attention to the weight of the evidence in front of us which are the statements from those at the meetings, the complaint itself, Councillor Turner’s account of these events, the small comment in the chat and the minutes of the meetings that have been available to the Investigator as well.

It seems to me that the events have taken place. Nobody really disagrees with that. It’s the extent and strength of feeling that’s at dispute here in my view. We’ve had representations that Councillor Turner is robust and passionate in his beliefs and he puts that over and that is understandable for a Councillor. The question I feel is how far have those comments gone, have they gone too far. In my view in going to those four alleged breaches of the Code, I would say that items 1 and 2 have been breached based on the behaviour at the meetings on the 5^th June and 29^th June.

On the 5^th June there appears to have been a personal attack on the representative of the Environment Agency and the SIG themselves. On the 29^th June there was certainly a verbal attack on the RNLI representative who was treated, as the witnesses have attested, disrespectfully.

I think that it is also important to take into account that both of those meetings were disrupted quite significantly in achieving their purpose. So in that way I do think that the Code of Conduct which requires Councillors to treat other Councillors with respect and also to treat other representatives and partner organisations with respect, has been breached in my view. I think that also leads to the fourth alleged breach namely bringing TDC into disrepute and I do think that has done that by treating others without respect.

The third item, about failing to promote equalities in a discriminatory matter I found more difficult to form a view on. I have looked at the headline of the Code, which is about saying that discrimination is unfair treatment towards particular groups. I don’t see that in the accounts that we have of the meetings. I think those with protected characteristics haven’t been subject to unfair treatment but when you look at the LGA guidance notes and indeed Mr. Kenyon has drawn attention to these in his report’s conclusions, we also have to consider whether there were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The Committee will retire to consider and deliberate in private the complaint prior to reaching its decision.

The Committee (accompanied by the Head of Democratic Services & Elections and the Executive Projects Manager – Governance) retired to consider and deliberate in private the complaint prior to reaching its decision.

Upon the Committee’s return the Chairman will announce the Committee’s decision in the following terms:-

(i)     the Councillor has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct; or

(ii)   the Councillor has not failed to comply with the Code of Conduct

The Committee will also give detailed reasons for its decision, which will be included within the published Decision Notice.

Upon the Committee’s return the Chairman was required to announce the Committee’s decision in the following terms:-

(i) the Councillor had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct; or

(ii) the Councillor had not failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.

The Committee was also required to give detailed reasons for its decision, which would be included within the published Decision Notice.

Upon the resumption of the meeting, the Chairman (Councillor Wiggins) accordingly read out the proposed decision.

It was then moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Newton and:-

RESOLVED that the Committee’s formal decision is as follows:-

If the Committee decides that the Councillor has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct it will then consider any representations from the Investigator and/or the Respondent Councillor as to the appropriate sanction, as set out in Section 8 of the Complaints Procedure, and based on relevance to the breach, being proportionate and necessary to promote and maintain high standards of conduct.

Section 8 sets out the available sanctions as follows:-

(1)    Publish its findings in respect of the Member’s conduct on the Council’s website;

(2)    Report its findings to Council for information;

(3)    Recommend to the Member’s Group Leader (or in the case of un-grouped members, recommend to Council or to Committee) that he/she be removed from any or all Committees or Sub-Committees of the Council;

(4)    Recommend to the Leader of the Council that the Member be removed from the Cabinet, or removed from particular Portfolio responsibilities;

(5)    Instruct the Monitoring Officer to arrange training for the Member;

(6)    Recommend to the relevant Group Leader (or in the case of un-grouped members, recommend to Council or to Committee) that the Member be removed from all outside appointments to which he/she has been appointed or nominated by the authority;

(7)    Recommend to the relevant Group Leader (or in the case of un-grouped members, recommend to Council or to Committee) the withdrawal of facilities provided to the Member by the Council, such as a computer, website and/or email and internet access; or

(8)    Recommend to the relevant Group Leader (or in the case of un-grouped members, recommend to Council or Committee) the exclusion of the Member from the Council’s Offices or other premises, with the exception of meeting rooms as necessary for attending Council, Committee and Sub-Committee meetings.

If the Committee decided that the Councillor had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct it would then consider any representations from the Investigator and/or the Respondent Councillor as to the appropriate sanction, as set out in Section 8 of the Complaints Procedure, and based on relevance to the breach, being proportionate and necessary to promote and maintain high standards of conduct.

Section 8 set out the available sanctions as follows:-

(1)   Publish its findings in respect of the Member’s conduct on the Council’s website;

(2)   Report its findings to Council for information;

(3) Recommend to the Member’s Group Leader (or in the case of un-grouped members, recommend to Council or to Committee) that he/she be removed from any or all Committees or Sub-Committees of the Council;

(4)   Recommend to the Leader of the Council that the Member be removed from the Cabinet, or removed from particular Portfolio responsibilities;

(5)   Instruct the Monitoring Officer to arrange training for the Member;

(6)   Recommend to the relevant Group Leader (or in the case of un-grouped members, recommend to Council or to Committee) that the Member be removed from all outside appointments to which he/she has been appointed or nominated by the authority;

(7)   Recommend to the relevant Group Leader (or in the case of un-grouped members, recommend to Council or to Committee) the withdrawal of facilities provided to the Member by the Council, such as a computer, website and/or email and internet access; or

(8)   Recommend to the relevant Group Leader (or in the case of un-grouped members, recommend to Council or Committee) the exclusion of the Member from the Council’s Offices or other premises, with the exception of meeting rooms as necessary for attending Council, Committee and Sub-Committee meetings.

The Investigating Officer (Melvin Kenyon) declined to make any representations as to the sanctions to be applied, as he did not feel it would be appropriate to do so.

Ian Taylor, on behalf of Councillor Turner, requested that no further sanctions be imposed on Councillor Turner over and above those that he had already incurred i.e. the loss of his committee and outside body appointments and the loss of his Group membership.

The Independent Person will provide their views on this matter as to the Sanction(s) to be applied (if any), which the Committee will take into account before it makes its decision.

The Independent Person then had the opportunity to provide their views on this matter as to the Sanction(s) to be applied (if any), which the Committee would take into account before it made its decision.

Sue Gallone, Independent Person, made the following statement:-

“My view on the sanctions are that it is necessary to publish the findings and to report the findings to Council in the interests of transparency and democracy. With regard to the Council appointments, I think the ongoing status of those is more a matter for the Party and Council rather than me to have a view and so I don’t have a particular view on that. In terms of training I don’t see the need for further standards training for the Code of Conduct. Councillor Turner has had plenty of training on that but I do wonder if there is some scope for some sort of one-to-one advisory section to reflect on this experience and how things might be done differently. But, I am applying experience from elsewhere here and I don’t know if that would be possible within this Council.

Likewise, on the outside appointments I don’t have a view on that. I think that’s for the Council and the Leader. The resource sanctions numbers seven and eight are I think too draconian to restrict access in that way. And although this is a serious finding I don’t think it’s of a nature where that is necessary. So those are my views for the Committee to consider. Thank you.”  

The Committee will then retire once more to consider and deliberate in private what action, if any, should be taken.

The Committee (accompanied by the Head of Democratic Services and the Executive Projects Manager – Governance) then retired once more to consider and deliberate in private what action, if any, should be taken.

On the Committee’s return the Chairman will announce the Committee’s decision as to what actions they resolve to take, having regard to Section 8 of the Complaints Procedure.

The Committee will consider whether it should make any specific recommendations to the Council with a view to promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct among Members.

The Chairman will confirm that a full written Decision Notice shall be issued within 7 working days following the hearing and that the Committee’s findings will be published on the Council’s website and reported to the next full Council meeting.

On the Committee’s return the Chairman was required to announce the Committee’s decision as to what actions they had resolved to take, having regard to Section 8 of the Complaints Procedure.

The Committee would also consider whether it wanted to make any specific recommendations to the Council with a view to promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct among Members.

Upon the resumption of the meeting, the Chairman read out the proposed sanctions.

It was then moved by Councillor Baker, seconded by Councillor Newton and:-

RESOLVED that the Committee’s formal decision as to the sanctions to be applied is as follows:-

“The Committee has considered the representations from the subject member and the views of the Independent Person.  It also acknowledges that the Investigating Officer did not make representations on the sanctions.

It is the Committee’s considered view that the following sanctions should be applied in response to the finding of the breach of the Code of Conduct for Members, announced already:

(1)       Publish its findings in respect of the Member’s conduct on the Council’s website;

(2)       Report its findings to Council for information;

(3)       Instruct the Monitoring Officer to arrange training for the Member;

The suggestion from the Independent Person for this style of training to be more of a 1:1 reflective session around learning from the complaint is one the Committee endorses.

In addition, the Committee finds that there should be an apology issued by the subject member to the Coastal SIG and to this Council recognising the finding of this Committee.

Further, while recognising that decisions around membership of Committees for a non-aligned Member (which the subject member currently is), is a matter for Full Council, the Committee considers that any decision to appoint the subject member to a Committee should be after the apologies requested have been issued and the training undertaken.

Likewise, while the decision of appointments to outside bodies is a matter for the Leader of the Council, the Committee considers that any decision to appoint the subject member to an outside body should be after the apologies requested have been issued and the training undertaken.

We hope that the apologies and training can both be expedited and therefore not delay the appointments referenced.

The Committee considered that there was a breach of Article 10 in applying the sanctions concerned.  However, and accepting that political debate has a higher protection under Article 10,  the consequential restriction on the subject member from the sanctions applied are ones which are justified by reason of the requirement of article 10 subparagraph 2.”

The Chairman confirmed that a full written Decision Notice would be issued within seven working days following the hearing.