Full graphics version | Change low graphics options | Skip navigation | Site map | Help | Contact us
|Home page | Publications | Events | Meeting diary | Online payments
|
Registered Users |
|
On 2 November 2011, the Standards and Ethics (Local Assessment) Sub Committee of this authority considered a complaint from Mr Greg Jones concerning the alleged conduct of District Councillor Stephen Thirlwell and Parish Councillor David Hadley, a member of Beaudesert and Henley in Arden Joint Parish Council.
In accordance with Section 57A(2) of the Local Government Act 2000, as amended, the Initial Assessment Sub-Committee of the Standards and Ethics Committee decided that no action should be taken on the allegation.
the Review Sub-Committee of the Standards and Ethics Committee met on 19th September 2011 to reconsider the complaint and it has carefully considered the complainant's further comments, and the papers that were considered by the Standards and Ethics (Initial Assessment) Sub Committee. It was decided to uphold the decision not to take any action on the complaint.
On 7th September 2011, the Standards and Ethics (Local Assessment) Sub Committee of this authority considered a complaint from Mrs Jane Corbett concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor John Stedman, a member of Salford Priors Parish Council.
In accordance with Section 57A(2) of the Local Government Act 2000, as amended, the Initial Assessment Sub-Committee of the Standards and Ethics Committee decided that no action should be taken on the allegation.
On 7th September 2011, the Standards and Ethics (Local Assessment) Sub Committee of this authority considered a complaint from Mr Robert Montgomery and a further complaint from Mr AJ Beauchamp concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor Nick Drury of Brailes Parish Council.
In accordance with Section 57A(2) of the Local Government Act 2000, as amended, the Initial Assessment Sub-Committee of the Standards and Ethics Committee decided that no action should be taken on the allegation.
On 11th May 2011 the Standards and Ethics (Determination of Complaints) Sub Committee met. Previously, on the 3rd August 2010 the Standards and Ethics (Local Assessment) Sub Committee (“the Sub-Committee") referred allegations about Councillor William (Bill) Leech of Beaudesert and Henley Joint Parish Council (“the JPC") to Standards for England (SFE) for Determination. The allegations were referred back by SFE on the 22nd September 2010 and on the 5th October 2010, the Sub Committee referred the allegations to the Monitoring Officer for investigation who in turn appointed Mr Stephen Cork to carry out the investigation.
The Sub Committee provided the following general summary of the allegation:
It was alleged that Councillor Leech had sent threatening correspondence to Mrs Walsh and also maliciously attempted to undermine her position as Clerk to the JPC. Examples of this alleged conduct included:
(i) Threatening Mrs Walsh personally with legal action in respect of functions that she had carried out in her professional capacity as Clerk to the JPC;
(ii) Attempting to undermine Mrs Walsh in her professional capacity by;
(a) Publicly criticising her through an on-line newspaper and using the same forum to deliberately misrepresent her;
(b) Publicly criticising her terms and conditions of employment despite being advised that such discussions should properly be resolved by the JPC in private;
(c) Responding to reasonable requests from Mrs Walsh with threats of complaints to third parties;
(d) Sending her details of a governance toolkit which coupled with a reference to his seeking advice elsewhere, implied that he was questioning her competence.
On the 8th November 2010 the Sub Committee convened to consider a further complaint from Mrs Walsh against Councillor Leech. The subject of the complaint was an e-mail dated 29th October 2010 from Mr John Tristram (Councillor Leech's representative) to which was attached a copy of Mrs Walsh's original complaint. The e mail sought to elicit a character reference on behalf of Councillor Leech and asked “if appropriate" for “a statement concerning any experiences you may have had of Mrs Walsh's attitude, conduct and particularly correspondence from her."
The complaint was also referred for investigation. The allegations were investigated by Mr Stephen Cork who prepared a report concerning possible breaches of the Code of Conduct and under section 59 of the Local Government Act 2000 this was referred to the Monitoring Officer of the Council to be determined by the Standards Committee.
In relation to the article in Henley News on Line, the Sub Committee found that Councillor Leech had breached paragraph 3(1) of the Code of Conduct in that he failed to treat Mrs Walsh with respect. In reaching this judgement they were mindful that the headline took her comments out of context, and that the references to Mrs Walsh's conduct as illegal or outside of her mandate were unjustified. Furthermore, it was not appropriate to first raise the criticisms of Mrs Walsh's professional conduct through an on-line newspaper.
In relation to the disclosure of confidential information the Sub Committee endorsed the finding of Mr Cork at paragraph 7.13.2 and found that Councillor Leech had breached paragraph 4(a) of the Code of Conduct.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Sub- Committee endorsed Mr Cork's findings in relation to the application of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act as set out in paragraphs 7.7 to 7.9 of his report.
THE DECISION ON SANCTION
The Committee carefully considered the submissions having regard, in respect of sanctions to the Standards Board for England guidance: “Standards Committee Determinations." The Committee determined that the breaches of the code were sufficiently serious that the public would expect them to be marked by a sanction. Accordingly, it was determined
(i) that Councillor Leech
(ii) that the apology should address the facts found by this sub-committee , namely that Mrs Walsh's comments were taken out of context, the references to her acting illegally or outside of her mandate were unjustified, and that criticisms of her professional conduct should not have been raised for the first time in an on-line newspaper, and
(iii) in the event that Councillor Leech does not comply with these requirements the Sub-Committee further directed that he be suspended for two weeks following the expiry of the days specified above.
Downloads:
Decision Notice SEC037 (16KB PDF)
|
SEC025R Decision Letter (15KB PDF)
|
SEC036 Decision Notice (14KB PDF)
|
SEC030 Decision Notice (14KB PDF)
|
Councillor Bill Leech Judgement (43KB PDF)
| Help with PDFs
| Quick links | |||||||
|
|||||||
Main navigation:
Do It Online | Advice & Benefits | Business | Community & Living | Council & Democracy | Councillors & Meetings | Education & Learning | Health & Social Care | Housing | Jobs & Careers | Leisure & Culture | News & Media | Planning & Building | Roads, Parking & Transport | Website Assistance
