Purpose of report:

To advise the Committee of:

1.      the number of complaints received under the Members’ Code of Conduct which have been, or are to be, considered by the Head of Law and Governance (in her statutory capacity as the authority’s Monitoring Officer) and the Independent Persons. The report also notes the outcome, where complaints have been concluded; and

2.       the number of dispensations to an individual member, granted under Section 33 of the 2011 Localism Act, by the Monitoring Officer, following consultation with an Independent Person.

Recommendation:

That the Standards Committee notes the content of the report.

Councillor Diggins presented the report and noted the content of the report.

Councillor Harley asked if the 12 complaints in the report had been made by different people or if they had been made by the same person. Emma Jackman, Head of Law and Governance, responded that each complaint came from separate individuals, though some complaints related to the same Councillor.

Councillor Harley asked about references in paragraphs 4.5 and 6 regarding the impartiality of Council officers and asked for further information about these complaints.

The Head of Law and Governance responded that each complaint is slightly different. However, the reference in the report quotes the code of conduct which concerns Councillors not impeding or challenging the impartiality of officers.

Councillor Diggins asked about the complaints concerning the social media platform X. She asked how these complaints fell under the Councillor code of conduct. The Head of Law and Governance responded that a Councillor can be found in violation for their actions on social media if it is clear that the councillor was acting in their capacity as a Councillor during their actions on social media. If a Councillor is not acting in their capacity as a councillor when posting on social media, then their actions may not fall under the code of conduct.

Councillor Smowton asked about the complaint wherein there had been a recommendation to take action. He asked if that action had been taken. The Head of Law and Governance said that the action had been taken.

Councillor Djafari-Marbini asked about the actions of Councillors on social media. She said that whether Councillors are posting in a personal or professional capacity, they will always be known as a Councillor. With this in mind, she asked if their actions on social media should always be covered by the code of conduct.

The Head of Law and Governance said that actions on social media are assumed to be personal views. For Councillors, this goes back to a piece of case law, which concerns what a person perceives as the capacity of their actions. For example, a Councillor could share something that is considered inappropriate, but it is not necessarily punishable under the code of conduct. However, if they share something inappropriate about a community matter which they are politically connected to or a fellow Councillor, then it falls under the code of conduct.

In response to a question from Councillor Djafari-Marbini, the Head of Law and Governance said that if a Councillor posts about something that is connected to their work as a Councillor, then it is likely to fall under the code of conduct. A further example of this would be if a Councillor is leaving the Town Hall and they shout at a fellow Councillor, they could assume that the first Councillor is acting in their capacity as a Councillor. However, if this occurred in a pub, the same assumption may not be made. The context is central to a determination of whether something falls under the code of conduct.

The committee agreed the recommendations of the report.