Meeting documents

1

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

Mrs Ceri Thomas had stated she was unable to participate at the meeting as she was of the opinion she knew Councillor J. R. Owen referred to in Item 3 of the Minutes. However, she confirmed that she had been mistaken and that she did not know Councillor Owen and would be able to participate.  

Declaration of interest by Mr J. Cotterell in respect of item 4 of the Minutes as both the Complainant and the Councillor concerned are residents of the same village as Mr Cotterell.

(Note : the item is listed as Item 3 on the Agenda but was taken as Item 4 at the meeting and shown as Item 4 of the Minutes).

The Monitoring Officer  declared an interest in respect of Item 4 of the Minutes. Mr Durkin had made a complaint against the Monitoring Officer which needed to be decided upon by the Standards Committee. (See decision at Item 4 in the Minutes).

2

MINUTES

Minutes of the following Standards Committee meetings were confirmed and signed as a true account of the meetings:

16th October 2006 - pages 81 - 83 of this Volume

23rd October 2006 - pages 84 - 85 of this Volume

The Chair announced that, with the Committee’s approval, Items 3 and 4 of the Agenda would be reversed due to the fact that Mr Durkin had raised a number of issues which could be time consuming. The Committee agreed to the change.

3

COMPLAINT AGAINST A COMMUNITY COUNCILLOR

The Chair introduced this item by reminding those present that this was a full Hearing held as a result of  Councillor J.R.Owen having breached the Code of Conduct and invited the Monitoring Officer to address the meeting.

The Monitoring Officer drew the Committee’s attention to the Ombudsman’s Report dated 27 July 2006 when he had concluded that Councillor Owen had breached paragraph 16(3) of the Code of Conduct and in his findings under Section 69 of the Local Government Act 2000 had referred his report to the Monitoring Officer for consideration by the Council’s Standards Committee.

At its meeting held on 16th October 2006, the Standards Committee had Resolved that there was a case to answer and that a full Hearing should be held into the matter Subsequently, representations had been received from Councillor J. R. Owen and from Councillor C.G.Topps, the Chair of the Aberffraw Community Council, who was acting as Councillor Owen’s representative.

Councillor J.R.Owen, in his letter dated 23rd October 2006, accepted the findings of the Report and apologised unreservedly for his actions and naiveté. The Standards Committee were therefore required to proceed to determine what, if any, Sanction should be imposed on Councillor Owen.

A letter from Ms.Emma Roberts, the Complainant, was read out and distributed at the meeting. In her letter Ms Roberts expressed her view that some members of the Community Council had deliberately tried to ensure she did not have a seat on the Community Council, in particular Councillor J.R.Owen who had failed to declare an interest as required under the Code and had voted for his own son to be elected on the Community Council.  She concluded the matter had been deeply upsetting for her and that she felt members who were meant to be pillars of the Community had made a mockery of the system.

The Chair invited Councillor Topps, acting as Councillor Owen’s representative, to address the Committee. Councillor Topps reiterated that Councillor Owen fully accepted the findings of the Report. He felt there to be one unfair aspect in the Report which made reference to “personal fiefdom”. He stated that Councillor Owen is a highly respected member of the community, is on the Board of Governors of the Primary School at Aberffraw and a member of the Good Turn Scheme. He is an elderly, modest man. Councillor Topps stated the Members of the Community Council had been misguided and had they known then what they know now they would have acted differently.

In response to questions from Members, Councillor Topps stated the Community Council relied on guidance from the Clerk of the Council but on this occasion the Clerk was unable to assist. The Local County Councillor had been asked for his advice. There had been no intention to be deceitful. He added all Members of the Community Council act on a Voluntary basis and have no form of recompense. There is always a shortage of public elections in Aberffraw with most Members being co-opted on to the Community Council. He believed there to be no “personal benefit” in being on the Community Council and had believed it to be in order for Councillor Owen to vote as, had the election have been an open election, he could not only have voted for his son but also for himself. In hindsight, he realised this to be an error of judgement and in future would adjourn the meeting to seek proper legal advice. He reiterated valuable lessons had been learnt.

Councillor Topps confirmed all the Members had signed up to the Code of Conduct and had not requested any additional training in respect of any aspect of the Code.

The Committee retired to private session to consider its decision.

The Committee returned to Public Session and the Chair announced its decision based on findings of fact.

The Committee considers this to be a most blatant breach of the Code of Conduct. The Standards Committee  notes that Councillor Owen has accepted the findings of the Ombudsman. However, the Committee is concerned about the implications for the complainant, Mrs Emma Roberts, and for the trust and confidence the local Community is entitled to expect from its Community Council and its Members. It is persuaded that had Councillor Owen declared an interest and withdrawn, it is more likely than not that Mrs Roberts would have become elected to the Community Council, in place of Councillor Owen’s son.

The conduct, which is the subject of the complaint, is therefore more than a technical breach because it has created an ongoing injustice to a third party and seriously risked the reputation and good name of the Aberffraw Community Council.

The Standards Committee has no powers to directly remedy that injustice but it does have an advisory role and, in that capacity, it is the recommendation of the Standards Committee that Community Councillor Barry Owen should seriously consider resigning as a Member of the Aberffraw Community Council in order to trigger a re-election. Councillor Barry Owen would, of course, be free to stand again in such an election.

While the Standards Committee cannot compel this, it is the view of the Committee that this is the only way to achieve an equitable outcome and to restore public confidence in the process.

Furthermore, in view of the implications for Mrs Roberts, the Committee considers that a censure would be inadequate and, instead, directs that Community Councillor J.R.Owen be suspended as a Member of the Aberffraw Community Council for a period of three months, commencing on the expiry of 21 days from today, always subject to the outcome of any appeal lodged.

Councillor Owen is advised that he has a right of appeal against this decision to the Adjudication Panel. That appeal must be put in writing, by Councillor Owen, to The Registrar, Room G.076, Adjudication Panel for Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NQ within 21 days from today.

The Committee would wish to add its concerns regarding the allegations made by Mrs Roberts in her letter  which, if true, could amount to maladministration.

The Clerk to all Community Councils should note that a new Code of Conduct will come into force during 2007 and that the Standards Committee will expect Clerks to all Community Councils to attend the training to be offered by the Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer.

All the Principals involved in this case i.e. Councillor Topps, Councillor J.R.Owen and Councillor O.Glyn Jones should re familiarise themselves with the Code of Conduct.

4

COMPLAINT AGAINST A COMMUNITY COUNCILLOR

As noted in Item 1 above,  Mr J.Cotterell declared an interest in the following item and left the meeting during discussion thereon.

The Monitoring Officer left the meeting whilst the issue of a possible conflict of interest was decided upon by the Committee.

The Chair informed the Committee that Mr Durkin had introduced a number of issues after the Agenda had been sent out. One such issue was a possible conflict of interest by the Monitoring Officer which the Standards Committee would need to decide upon. A copy of a letter sent by Mr Durkin to the Standards Committee was read out by the Chair and distributed at the meeting. In that letter, Mr Durkin made reference to the Monitoring Officer and alleged that it appears she has already given untrue and misleading information in a letter to all County Councillors, tantamount to calling me a liar, making her position and that of her staff untenable when it comes to advising the committee”.  In addition, Mr Durkin wrote “.... the report itself from the Ombudsman generates so much prejudice, it all most beggars belief...”

The Chair invited Mr Meirion Jones, Solicitor to the Monitoring Officer  to report on the background to the issue. Mr Jones reported that:-

Ÿ

Councillor Peter Rogers, at a meeting of the County Council held on 19th September questioned whether Councillor D.E.Lewis-Roberts was eligible to use the designatory letters behind his name;

Ÿ

The question had nothing to do with the issue before the Standards Committee. i.e. Appendix A of the Ombudsman’s Report which refers only to New Zealand and Planning issues;

Ÿ

Councillor Lewis-Roberts presented the Monitoring Officer with certification confirming the accuracy of his designatory letters and requested that a letter be sent to all Councillors confirming this as the matter had been raised at a meeting of the County Council;

Ÿ

A letter was sent by the Monitoring Officer to all Councillors on 4 October 2006 read  “I have seen Councillor Lewis-Roberts who produced to me certification confirming the accuracy of these designatory letters and accordingly he has requested me to write to all Members to confirm.”

Ÿ

The Monitoring Officer makes no reference to Mr Durkin in her letter to the County Councillors and therefore it was neither untrue nor misleading information and did not make her position untenable;

Ÿ

With regard to the suggestion of the Ombudsman’s report being prejudice, it was acknowledged the Report is a negative Report otherwise it would not be presented to the Committee. Any further observations Mr Durkin may wish to make regarding the Report should be addressed to the Ombudsman.

Mr Meirion Jones advised the Standards Committee should retire to Private Session to consider whether or not the Monitoring Officer has been prejudiced in this matter.

On returning to Public Session the Chair stated the Committee was unanimous in its opinion that the Monitoring Officer had not been prejudiced for the following reasons:-

1

Mr Durkin’s name is not mentioned in the letter from the Monitoring Officer to all County Council Members and

The Chair invited the Monitoring Officer to return to the meeting. The Chair reminded the Committee that it was required to determine whether or not to hold a Hearing into the complaint and invited the Monitoring Officer to introduce the Ombudsman’s Report.

The Monitoring Officer drew attention to the Ombudsman’s Report dated 20th July 2006 and in particular to paragraph 23 of the Report which states that: “Councillor Durkin has failed to heed the warning in my earlier report and as a consequence has behaved in a manner which is in breach of both paragraphs 4(a) and 6(1)(b) of the Council’s Code of Conduct.”

The Ombudsman’s finding under section 69 of the Local Government Act 2000 is that his report on the investigation should be referred to the Monitoring Officer for consideration by the Council’s Standards Committee. The Standards Committee were now required to reach an initial decision on the Report by either:-

Ÿ

concluding there is insufficient evidence and dismissing the allegation

or

Ÿ

conclude it is satisfied there is a case to answer and to adjourn from holding a full hearing so as to allow Mr Durkin and/or his Solicitor/Barrister to representations

and

Ÿ

to decide whether or not it wished the Ombudsman’s investigator to attend the hearing, and if so, what matters would need to be addressed.

The Committee withdrew into private session to consider its decision. On returning to public session, the Chair announced that the Committee had :-

RESOLVED :

In deciding a date for the Hearing to take place, reference was made to an “e” mail received from Mr Durkin and the Chair invited Mr Durkin to address the Committee regarding this issue.

Mr Durkin thanked the Committee for resolving that the matter to heard at a full Hearing. With regard to a proposal regarding a date for such a Hearing, Mr Durkin stated he had spoken to his Solicitors two days previously and had been advised that it would be at least the end of January 2007 before the Barrister would be in a position to present his defence. He asked for the Hearing to be held at a later date as this would be beneficial to the Committee.

The Chair announced that the Committee would withdraw into private session to consider Mr Durkin’s request.

The Committee returned to Public Session whereby the Chair announced that the Committee is concerned at the length of the extension of time requested by Mr Durkin and would request that he provide a written list of dates on which his legal representatives will be available up to the end of January 2007, to the Monitoring Officer, by no later than the last working day of November 2006. The Committee would not wish the Hearing to go beyond the 31st January 2007.

The Chair added that given the content of Mr Durkin’s “e” mail of the 8th November 2006, the Standards Committee wished to take the opportunity to make it clear that the issue which the Committee will address, at the Hearing, is whether or not Mr Durkin’s action, in publishing the leaflet at Appendix “A” of the Ombudsman’s Report, amounts to a breach of the Code of Conduct.

Mr Durkin was advised to look at the final sentence of paragraph 21 of the Ombudsman’s Report of the 20th June 2006. The Standards Committee will not be interested in submissions about whether or not Mr Durkin’s claims are true. This is irrelevant to the decision the Committee is required to make.

The Standards Committee will not allow its proceedings to be used as a vehicle to pursue allegations against the Complainant.

If Mr Durkin has evidence against Councillor David Lewis Roberts, then the appropriate course of action is for him to produce that evidence to the Ombudsman.

DR GWYNETH ROBERTS

CHAIR