Agenda item

In accordance with the District Council’s Complaints Procedure, the Monitoring Officer will report to the Standards Committee, where there is evidence of a failure to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

There was submitted a report (A.1) by the Council’s Monitoring Officer (Lisa Hastings) in respect of a failure to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

 

It was reported that on 1 August 2017, District Councillor Jack Parsons had enquired with the Council’s Monitoring Officer whether he could refer himself to the Standards Committee following his criminal conviction on 27 July 2017, which he acknowledged had brought the Council into disrepute. The Monitoring Officer had advised him that due to the seriousness of the conviction, the matter would be reported to the next meeting of the Committee in any event. 

 

Members were informed that one complaint had been received by the Monitoring Officer under the Members’ Code of Conduct and Complaints Procedure following the actions of Councillor Parsons as reported in the media. The complaint had been submitted by Mr William Hones, a member of the public. Mr Hones’ complaint had made reference to the fact that it had been reported on the on-line version of the Clacton Gazette that Councillor Parsons had pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a bladed article and was handed a twelve month Community Order and to carry out seventy hours of unpaid work. The second part to Mr Hones’ complaint had made reference to Councillor Parsons had allegedly failed to represent his residents by not belonging to a political group, in particular one of the non-aligned groups on the Council and was consequently not allocated any Committee seats. The complaint was attached to the report as Appendix 2.

 

Members recalled that at the Council meeting in March 2017, it had been considered whether it wished to allocate Committee seats to Councillors who were not part of a group and decided it would not do so.

 

Members were informed that the complaint had alleged that Councillor Parsons had breached the Tendring District Council Members’ Code of Conduct. The alleged breaches had related to paragraphs 3.1 and 3.4(a) of the Code.

 

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the second part of Mr Hones’ complaint did not fall within the remit of the Standards Committee.

 

It was reported that Councillor Parsons had acknowledged that his conviction had brought the Council into disrepute and therefore, in breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct and a written apology had been received and was contained within the body of the Monitoring Officer’s report. Due to Councillor Parson’s acceptance, an investigation into the matter had not been required. Under the Complaints Procedure once there was a finding that evidence existed of a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, there were two options available, namely:

 

The first option was to consider an informal resolution (paragraph 7.1.1 of the Complaints Procedure). In this matter the Monitoring Officer did not consider that informal resolution was appropriate. It was noted that a formal apology had been given by Councillor Parsons, however, it was considered necessary and in the public interest for a referral to the Committee due to the seriousness of the conviction and upon the specific request.

 

The second option available (paragraph 7.1.2) was for the Monitoring Officer to report the outcome of any investigation to the Standards Committee to enable it to conduct a hearing before deciding whether the Member had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct and if so, whether to take any action in respect of the Member.  In this case, Councillor Parsons had already admitted that he had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct and therefore the Standards Committee had the power to take action in respect of individual Members as may be relevant and proportionate, and necessary to promote and maintain high standards of conduct.  Accordingly, the Standards Committee could consider the sanctions set out in paragraph 8 of the Complaints Procedure.

 

The Committee was made aware that all parties had had the opportunity to comment on the Monitoring Officer’s decision to refer the matter to the Standards Committee to determine the sanction in respect of Councillor Parsons.

 

In addition, the Council’s Independent Persons, Clarissa Gosling and John Wolton had both been consulted.

 

Clarissa Gosling’s comments were as follows:

 

“On the complaint that Councillor Parsons is not a member of any committees. I understand that it is the council’s decision that only members of a group may serve on committees, and I cannot comment on that.  I do not believe that a councillor should be forced to join a group which he feels does not reflect his values or the values of those who elected him.

 

All things being equal, I imagine a councillor would prefer to be on a committee, which comes with influence and a financial allowance, though does have a time commitment. I believe a councillor should be allowed to follow his conscience in whether or not to join a group, and that this part of the complaint is not justified.

 

Councillor Parsons has admitted that his actions, resulting in a conviction, have brought the council into disrepute and I do not believe that there is any doubt about this.

 

However, having made this appalling mistake it appears that he is making every possible effort to address the situation.  His apology acknowledges the offence very openly and shows he has understood and deeply regrets his actions – it does not appear to be not just formal words. It takes courage to do that.  He has received a sentence and will have to serve his punishment.  He has taken steps to address his medical problems and is undertaking ongoing therapy.

 

If he carries out these actions fully, and is able to rehabilitate himself, then I think that that would be an example to others that it is possible, and the council would no longer be in disrepute.

 

I do not read the newspaper reports, not living locally, nor do I know the personalities of councillors.  I came to these views having read the papers provided.”

 

John Wolton’s comments were as follows:

 

“it is unfortunate that Councillor Parsons created the situation he finds himself in, however it is acknowledged that in his response he is fairly remorseful for his actions and receiving professional advice and treatment. The residents choose Councillor Parsons to be the elected member for their ward and assume would stand by their selection. 

 

We have to accept the Magistrates’ Court decision and the sentence he has received, but Councillor Parsons should also be reminded of his obligations to Tendring District Council and the Code of Conduct. I trust that Councillor Parsons will stick to his treatment and prove himself to be a good councillor.  I am aware that the Committee is unable to remove Councillor Parsons from any committees, as he does not sit on any and he must not be prevented from undertaking ward work as an elected member.”

 

In summary the Monitoring Officer’s conclusions were as follows:

 

“Councillor Parsons is not just an individual, he has been elected to represent the residents of St. Paul’s Ward and sit on Tendring District Council. This is not the standard of behaviour an elected member should be exhibiting to the general public, and knife crime is very serious and under no circumstances, was this acceptable. It is abundantly clear that Councillor Parsons’ actions have breached the Code of Conduct which Councillors sign up to upon their election as members of Tendring District Council. The Code exists to ensure Councillors fulfil the statutory duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct in public life. 

 

The Leadership Principle of Public Life requires holders of public office to exhibit the other principles in their own behaviour and actively promote and robustly support the principles. 

 

Although not referred to in the complaint, Councillor Parsons has also failed to comply with the law and consequently, has contravened paragraph 3.7(a) of the Code of Conduct.

 

It is necessary for the Standards Committee to determine the breach as against the Principles of Public Life and Code of Conduct and their power to take action in respect of individual Members as may be relevant and proportionate, and necessary to promote and maintain high standards of conduct.”

 

The Committee, then retired to deliberate and reach its decision. The Monitoring Officer also accompanied them to advise on any legal points raised and to record the decision. The Independent Persons also accompanied the Committee during its retirement to comment upon any sanctions being considered by the Committee.

 

Following such deliberations the meeting resumed. 

 

It was moved by Councillor Davis, seconded by Councillor Nicholls and:

 

RESOLVED that the Committee:

 

(a)       notes that Councillor Parsons has received a criminal conviction for possession of a bladed article, namely a Carving knife, contrary to section 139(1) and (6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; 

 

(b)       notes in addition to the Monitoring Officer reporting this matter to the Standards Committee, a formal complaint concerning the conduct of Councillor Parsons has also been received;

 

(c)       welcomes the acknowledgement by Councillor Parsons that he has breached the Code of Conduct;

 

(d)       notes Councillor Parsons written apology sent to the Monitoring Officer;

 

(e)       notes the comments of both Independent Persons;

 

(f)        endorses the referral to the Committee to consider the sanctions; and

 

       (g)   (i)      acknowledges that Councillor Parsons is suffering from personal health problems;

 

(ii)     encourages Councillor Parsons to review his position as an elected Member due to the circumstances surrounding his conviction and whether he is able to effectively represent his Ward and residents;

 

(iii)     strongly encourages Councillor Parsons to continue with the professional advice and medical treatment he now has access to and that;

 

(iv)    requests the Monitoring Officer to publish the findings in respect of the Councillor Parsons conduct be published on the Council’s website and the Committee’s findings be reported to Council for information.